Bibliographic record
Abstract
The security and well-being of older adults in the grey zone - not incapable but more vulnerable - is a key area of concern among practitioners and legislators. The diminished capability associated with disease may be gradual and spotty, a grey zone that can last for years. Other, non-medical factors are also significant: vulnerability arises by reason of an individual's total life situation, including relationships, education, experience, personality, and connection to society. Protecting the interests of the vulnerable but capable has been considered in terms of protection from abuse, and/or in terms of capacity. Each approach has significant conceptually structural problems. Unless a very narrow definition of is used (essentially replicating the criminal offences dealing with assault and theft) adult protection legislation has inappropriately paternalistic aspects; older adults are entitled to make objectively foolish choices, take risks, or prefer new, disreputable friends over older, staider ones. Older adults do not require protection from the consequences of their own choices, freely made. A finding of incapacity would resolve the difficulty by simply re-categorising the vulnerable person as incapable, a response that will often be excessive and result in an unwanted and unnecessary loss of independence. Modern least-intrusive adult guardianship legislation attempts to modify that all or nothing outcome through a scheme of graduated capacities. In reality neither paradigm - abuse or capacity - realistically captures or appropriately responds to the range of situations in which the vulnerable but capable adult requires the assistance and support of the law. Those situations are most accurately understood with reference to the conceptual framework of equitable fraud.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".