Patterns of Risk in Adult Protection Referrals for Sexual Abuse and People with Intellectual Disability
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Adult protection monitoring data held by local authorities in England provide opportunities to examine referrals for alleged sexual abuse for people with intellectual disability to identify patterns of risk. Methods Adult protection monitoring data collected by two local authorities was analysed, with referrals for alleged sexual abuse compared to referrals for other types of abuse for people with intellectual disability and the wider research evidence. Results Over a fifth of referrals related to alleged sexual abuse, with two-thirds of these for women. Sexual abuse was confirmed in just over a quarter. Similarities were found with the findings of Brown et al. (Mental Handicap Research, 8, 1995:3) across a range of key characteristics. Conclusions Adult protection monitoring data can be used to provide risk management information on the sexual abuse of people with intellectual disability. To maximize its potential, detailed case characteristics need to be included and attention given to improving comparability between databases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it