MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997476327 · doi:10.1080/08946566.2011.652930

Seniors' Self-Administration of the Elder Abuse Suspicion Index (EASI): A Feasibility Study

2012· article· en· W1997476327 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Elder Abuse & Neglect · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueSt Mary's HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElder abuseMedicineGerontologyMental healthIndex (typography)PsychologySuicide preventionPoison controlPsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the feasibility of seniors aged 65 and over with MMSE ≥24 completing the EASI-sa, a self-administrable version of the Elder Abuse Suspicion Index (EASI). A convenience sample of 210 was stratified by age, sex, and language (English and French). All completed the EASI-sa within an estimated 5 minutes, 82.9% within 2 minutes. Completion time decreased with higher education, but was not affected by age, sex, language, or measured physical or mental health. No questions went unanswered; no words were poorly understood or discomforting. The EASI-sa completion was associated with a significantly increased understanding about elder abuse (p < 0.0001).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it