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 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 · 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.

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)0.001
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 score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
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