MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108493352 · doi:10.1080/08946566.2011.644088

Developing an Empirical Profile for Elder Abuse Research in Canada

2012· review· en· W2108493352 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

VenueJournal of Elder Abuse & Neglect · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsEmployment and Social Development CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElder abuseEmpirical researchPsychologyGerontologyHuman factors and ergonomicsQualitative researchResource (disambiguation)Poison controlApplied psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aging population of Canada and the associated caregiving demands highlight the need for elder abuse research. The objectives of this article are to provide a review of literature while identifying recommendations and directions for future research. Significant gaps in the knowledge base are identified that preclude the development of effective programming and policies. Future research directions include prevalence studies in community and institutional settings; studies on correlates, risk, and protective factors; research to clarify definitional issues and to develop psychometrically sound measurements; qualitative studies; and the need to support elder abuse research through capacity building and appropriate resource strategies.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.166 · 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