MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727147309 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.445

ELDER ABUSE IN CANADA: A GROWING DILEMMA IN AN AGING SOCIETY

2017· article· en· W2727147309 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Podnieks

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectElder abuseDilemmaPresentation (obstetrics)Depression (economics)PopulationGerontologyPopulation ageingPsychologyPsychological abuseChild abuseMedicinePsychiatrySuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergencyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to Statistics Canada, eight million adults will be over the age of 65 by 2031, nearly 25 percent of the population. Increasingly, older adults report being victims of abuse, even though Canada has actively addressed the problem since the early 1980s (Podnieks, 1989). This presentation describes the most recent study to quantify the extent of elder abuse and neglect in Canada (McDonald, 2016). More than three quarters of a million Canadian elders suffered some form of abuse last year, more than double the 1998 finding. One reason could be a rise in financial abuse, the second most frequent form behind psychological abuse. The most important risk factor was depression, followed by having been abused in another stage of the life course. This presentation describes the study’s guiding theoretical framework, methodology, and findings and draws conclusions and offers implications for future research and services for maltreated older adults in Canada.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0400.012
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207