MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015256784 · doi:10.1080/08946566.2011.646528

“Flying by the Seat of Our Pants”: Current Processes to Share Best Practices to Deal With Elder Abuse

2012· review· en· W2015256784 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
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLawson Health Research InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElder abusePsychologySuicide preventionPoison controlApplied psychologyGerontologyCriminologyMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined current processes used to identify, communicate, and adopt "best practices" in the field of elder abuse using an iterative process involving literature and Internet reviews, surveys completed by stakeholders, and key informant interviews. Results indicate minimal research evidence exists to support current assessment and intervention strategies; there is an immediate need for more evaluation and research in this area and for improved knowledge exchange and translation. Two strategic directions are recommended: to (a) build capacity for research and program evaluation to advance knowledge of effective practices, and (b) build capacity for knowledge exchange to enhance professionals' efforts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.279 · 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