MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127575612 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511921018.009

Elder abuse and bullying: exploring theoretical and empirical connections

2011· book-chapter· en· W2127575612 on OpenAlexaff
Christine A. Walsh, Gabrielle Daoust, Kate Beamer

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElder abuseScope (computer science)PsychologyPopulationGerontologyDependency (UML)Developmental psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlMedicineSociologyMedical emergencyDemographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adults aged 65 years and older represent one of the fastest-growing segments of the population in Western countries. It has been suggested that, with the increasing population of older adults, enhanced dependency and care-giving responsibilities there will likely occur a concomitant rise in all forms of violence against older adults (Fulmer et al., 2000; Glendenning, 1997). Over the course of the past three decades, the maltreatment of older adults has been increasingly examined, although there is a paucity of research on bullying in this population. This chapter offers theoretical explanations and reviews current information regarding the nature and scope of elder abuse and how bullying might be conceptualised within this framework. The chapter concludes with directions for further research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207