MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524596148 · doi:10.1080/08946566.2016.1240053

State of the science on prevention of elder abuse and lessons learned from child abuse and domestic violence prevention: Toward a conceptual framework for research

2016· review· en· W2524596148 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanne A. Teresi, David Burnes, Elizabeth A. Skowron, Mary Ann Dutton, Laura Mosqueda, Mark S. Lachs, Karl Pillemer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Elder Abuse & Neglect · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsElder abuseDomestic violencePrevention sciencePsychologySuicide preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsChild abuseConceptual frameworkInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergencySociologyIntervention (counseling)Social science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this review is to discuss the state of the science in elder abuse prevention. Findings from evidence-based programs to reduce elder abuse are discussed, drawing from findings and insights from evidence-based programs for child maltreatment and domestic/intimate partner violence. A conceptual measurement model for the study of elder abuse is presented and linked to possible measures of risk factors and outcomes. Advances in neuroscience in child maltreatment and novel measurement strategies for outcome assessment are presented.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Elder Abuse & NeglectSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207