MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057426814 · doi:10.1017/s0714980811000286

Elder Abuse and Neglect in Canada: The Glass is Still Half Full

2011· article· fr· W2057426814 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectElder abusePsychologyPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergencySuicide preventionPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Cet article examine les développements dans le domaine de la maltraitance et de la négligence des aînés depuis la publication de Elder Abuse and Neglect in Canada (Butterworths, 1991). Les arguments présentés ici sont de deux ordres : d’abord, nous n’avons aucune idée de la taille ou de la nature du problèmes de la violence et de la négligence dans la communauté ou dans les institutions et, d’autre part, nous ne savons pas comment résoudre ces problèmes ou leurs questions connexes qui ont été masqués par la rhétorique et le recyclage de l’information pendant les 20 dernières années. C’est le temps d’avancer au-delà de la « phase de sensibilisation ». Ce à quoi nous devons nous attaquer à l’avenir est aussi évident aujourd’hui qu’il ne l’était il y a 20 ans. Notre connaissance est incomplète parce qu’il nous manque le type d’enquêtes dont le besoin se fait le plus urgent: les études de prévalence dans la communauté et les institutions, un développement théoriquement solide, et des essais cliniques randomisé pour tester à la fois nos interventions socialement et juridiquement.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.196 · 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