MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088085643 · doi:10.1080/09503150500425091

A clash of cultures: Rural values and service delivery to mistreated and neglected older people in Eastern Canada

2005· article· en· W2088085643 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan R. Harbison, Stephen Coughlan, Jeff Karabanow, Madine VanderPlaat

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectHarmPublic relationsCentralisationService delivery frameworkService (business)Political scienceSociologyPsychologyMedicineBusinessNursingSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is considerable evidence to suggest that older people living in situations of mistreatment and neglect are reluctant to accept help. This is attributed to the high value that older generations place on their privacy and family integrity, and on their ability to cope and remain in charge of their lives. These values are particularly strong in rural communities. The paper explores the challenges these cultural norms pose for formal and informal helpers. The discussion is illustrated by the findings of a study of service delivery in rural Eastern Canada. The study revealed that the efforts of formal and informal helpers to accommodate older people's cultural norms, and respond to what they want, are frequently successful. However, this help is continually under threat from the centralisation and rationalisation of service delivery, as well as an increasing focus on the potential for litigation resulting from harm to clients or helpers. The implications of these findings for practice are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePracticeSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207