Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although social interest in elder maltreatment is increasing in Korea, the actual prevalence of elder abuse is hard to determine, and it is not even clear how “elder abuse” is generally defined. In particular, little is known about how aging adults are treated at home or in facilities or to what extent and under what circumstances their treatment might be considered abusive. In this study, a convenience sample of 102 Korean undergraduate students completed an open-ended qualitative survey asking them to provide examples, in their own words, of extreme, moderate, and mild abuse in family relationships. When giving examples of extreme elder abuse, these students emphasized neglect and physical maltreatment, followed by imprisonment and verbal abuse. When giving examples of moderate and mild elder abuse, respondents most frequently mentioned various forms of neglect and psychological abuse. Neglect, physical abuse, imprisonment, and sending the elderly to an institution were reported significantly more often as examples of extreme abuse than of moderate or mild abuse. In addition, Korean women tended to focus more on neglect than Korean men when giving examples of extreme elder abuse, whereas Korean men focused more on neglect than Korean women when giving examples of mild abuse.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".