MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156541977 · doi:10.1177/0164027509357705

Elder Abuse in Long-Term Care: Types, Patterns, and Risk Factors

2010· article· en· W2156541977 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Aging · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectElder abusePsychological abusePhysical abusePsychological interventionLong-term careVerbal abuseMedicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyGerontologyPsychologySuicide preventionPoison controlChild abuseEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors investigated types and patterns of elder abuse by paid caregivers in long-term care and assessed the role of several risk factors for different abuses and for multiple abuse types. The results are based on a 2005 random-digit-dial survey of relatives of persons in long-term care. We computed occurrence rates and conditional occurrence rates for each of six abuse types: physical, caretaking, verbal, emotional, neglect, and material. Among older adults who have experienced at least one type of abuse, more than half (51.4%) have experienced another type of abuse. Physical functioning problems, activities of daily living limitations, and behavioral problems are significant risk factors for at least three types of abuse and are significant for multiple abuse types. The findings have implications for those monitoring the well-being of older adults in long-term care as well as those responsible for developing public health interventions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.364 · 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