WorldView Environmental Scan on Elder Abuse
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to a growing and worldwide recognition of elder abuse, the WorldView Environmental Scan on Elder Abuse was undertaken. It represented an attempt to collect both information on the nature of the problem of elder abuse and responses to it from a global perspective. The first of its kind, the Scan gathered information about elder abuse as well as on related legislation and policy, services and programs, educational resources and needs, training, and past and ongoing research. A total of 53 countries responded to the survey questionnaire, with 362 respondents representing the six world regions designated by the World Health Organization. Findings revealed that factors contributing to elder abuse include changing social and economic structures, isolation of victims, inadequate knowledge of laws and services, intergenerational conflict, and poverty. Barriers to seeking resources to intervene and protect older adults include the culture of the country, language issues, literacy, stigma, lack of mobility, lack of funding, and insufficient familiarity with and access to the internet. The data serve as a catalyst to take action, both globally and nationally, while emphasizing the changes necessary to protect the rights and dignity of older adults.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it