MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148207997 · doi:10.1017/s104161021300015x

Elder abuse through a life course lens

2013· article· en· W2148207997 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Psychogeriatrics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHuman Resources and Skills Development Canada
KeywordsElder abuseNeglectLife course approachPhysical abusePsychological abuseSexual abuseLogistic regressionPoison controlPsychologyChild abusePsychiatryClinical psychologyMedicineSuicide preventionMultinomial logistic regressionMedical emergencyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This paper provides the findings from a large pilot study, Defining and Measuring Elder Abuse and Neglect, a precursor to a national prevalence study to be conducted in Canada beginning in September 2013. One purpose of this study and the focus of this paper was to determine whether a life course perspective would provide a useful framework for examining elder abuse. The two-year pilot study, 2009-2011, examined the prevalence of perceptions of abuse at each life stage by type of abuse, the importance of early life stage abuse in predicting types of elder abuse, and early life stage abuse as a risk factor for elder abuse. METHODS: Older adults who were aged ≥55 years (N = 267) completed a cross-sectional telephone survey, comprising measures of five types of elder abuse (neglect, physical, sexual, psychological, and financial) and their occurrence across the life course: childhood (≤17 years), young adulthood (18 to 24 years), and older adulthood (5 to 12 months prior to the interview date). Data analyses included descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations for abuse at the various life stages, and the estimation of logistic regression models that examined predictors of late life abuse, and multinomial logistic regression models predicting the frequency of abuse. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of the sample reported abuse during childhood, and 34.1% reported abuse during young adulthood. Forty-three percent said they were abused during mature adulthood, and 24.4% said they were abused since age 55 but prior to the interview date of the study. Psychological (42.3%), physical (26.6%), and sexual abuses (32.2%) were the most common abuses in childhood while psychological abuse was the most common type of abuse at each life stage. When the risk factors for abuse were considered simultaneously including abuse during all three life stages, only a history of abuse during childhood retained its importance (OR = 1.81, p = 0.046, CI = 1.01-3.26). Abuse in childhood increased the risk of experiencing one type of abuse relative to no abuse, but was also unrelated to experiencing two or more types of abuse compared to no abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a life course perspective provides a useful framework for understanding elder abuse and neglect. The findings indicate that a childhood history of abuse in this sample had a deciding influence on later mistreatment, over and above what happens later in life.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.317 · 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