MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297530435 · doi:10.1093/geront/gnw004

Elder Abuse: Global Situation, Risk Factors, and Prevention Strategies

2016· review· en· W2297530435 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

VenueThe Gerontologist · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsElder abuseIntervention (counseling)MedicinePerspective (graphical)PsychologyGerontologyPublic relationsPolitical sciencePoison controlSuicide preventionNursingEnvironmental healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Elder mistreatment is now recognized internationally as a pervasive and growing problem, urgently requiring the attention of health care systems, social welfare agencies, policymakers, and the general public. In this article, we provide an overview of global issues in the field of elder abuse, with a focus on prevention. DESIGN AND METHODS: This article provides a scoping review of key issues in the field from an international perspective. RESULTS: By drawing primarily on population-based studies, this scoping review provided a more valid and reliable synthesis of current knowledge about prevalence and risk factors than has been available. Despite the lack of scientifically rigorous intervention research on elder abuse, the review also identified 5 promising strategies for prevention. IMPLICATIONS: The findings highlight a growing consensus across studies regarding the extent and causes of elder mistreatment, as well as the urgent need for efforts to make elder mistreatment prevention programs more effective and evidence based.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.324 · 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