MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045350654 · doi:10.1080/08946566.2013.792104

A Systematic Evaluation of a Multidisciplinary Social Work–Lawyer Elder Mistreatment Intervention Model

2013· article· en· W2045350654 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 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachElder abuseIntervention (counseling)Social workBivariate analysisFidelityLogistic regressionMedicinePsychologyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsNursingEnvironmental healthEngineeringSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study introduces a conceptually based, systematic evaluation process employing multivariate techniques to evaluate a multidisciplinary social work-lawyer intervention model (JASA-LEAP). Logistic regression analyses were used with a random sample of case records (n = 250) from three intervention sites. Client retention, program fidelity, and exposure to multidisciplinary services were significantly related to reduction in mistreatment risk at case closure. Female gender, married status, and living with perpetrator significantly predicted unfavorable outcomes. This study extends the elder mistreatment program evaluation literature beyond descriptive/bivariate evaluation strategies. Findings suggest that a multidisciplinary social work-lawyer elder mistreatment intervention model is a successful approach.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.306 · 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