Association for Conflict Resolution Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordination: From Conflict to Collaboration toward the Care and Safety of Elders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Association for Conflict Resolution endorsed the work of its Task Force on Eldercaring Coordination, composed of twenty‐one U.S. and Canadian organizations that developed a dispute resolution option specifically for high‐conflict cases involving the care and safety of elders. Currently there are no options for dispute resolution that differentiate between the unique needs of cases involving elders. Using parenting coordination as a model, Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordination contain an ethical framework for the practices of eldercaring coordinators. Training protocols, a court pilot project template, and project assessment tool complete the package so that this new application to a promising field can be applied responsibly and productively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.124 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".