MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115800664 · doi:10.1002/crq.21124

Association for Conflict Resolution Guidelines for Eldercaring Coordination: From Conflict to Collaboration toward the Care and Safety of Elders

2015· article· en· W2115800664 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueConflict Resolution Quarterly · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConflict resolutionDispute resolutionTask (project management)Task forceResolution (logic)PsychologyAssociation (psychology)Work (physics)Conflict managementPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineeringLawPublic administrationPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.285 · 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