MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080770444 · doi:10.1300/j084v19n01_02

Intimate Partner Abuse of Older Men: Considerations for the Assessment of Risk

2007· article· en· W2080770444 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Reeves, Sarah L. Desmarais, Tonia L. Nicholls, Kevin S. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Elder Abuse & Neglect · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElder abuseContext (archaeology)Domestic violencePsychologySuicide preventionRisk assessmentPoison controlPopulationHuman factors and ergonomicsIntimate partnerMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intimate partner abuse among older persons, though less common than among the general population, is a significant concern. Drawing from the intimate partner abuse and elder abuse literatures, this paper presents considerations for the assessment of risk for intimate partner abuse perpetrated against older men, with reference to the prevalent gendered view of abuse between intimate partners. Potential victim and perpetrator risk factors specific to this context are discussed and existing risk assessment tools are introduced. Implications and future research directions are discussed with regard to the application of risk assessment technology to this context.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Elder Abuse & NeglectSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207