Utilization of Formal Support Services for Elder Abuse: Do Informal Supporters Make a Difference?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Few elder abuse (EA) victims ever seek or receive assistance from formal support services designed to mitigate risk and harm of revictimization. This study examined whether the presence of third-party "concerned persons" in victims' personal social networks plays a role in enabling formal support service utilization. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A representative population-based survey administered to adults (n = 800) in New York State identified 83 EA cases from the past year. Penalized likelihood logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between availability of a concerned person and victim formal support services usage. RESULTS: EA victims who had a concerned person in their personal life were significantly more likely to use formal EA support services than victims without a concerned person. EA victims who lived with their perpetrator were significantly less likely to use formal services. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Third-party concerned persons represent a critical population to target in efforts designed to promote EA victim help-seeking.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it