MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890063190 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afy140.86

111Rapid Realist Review of Adult Safeguarding Legislation and Policy Internationally - Lessons for Ireland

2018· article· en· W2890063190 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Donnelly, Marita A. O’Brien, Judy Walsh, Jim Campbell, Joanne McInerney, Nao Kodate

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSafeguardingLegislationMedicinePublic administrationNursingLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Adult safeguarding is increasingly attracting policy and practice interest internationally. The investigation of the alleged abuse of vulnerable adults, including older people, has become an important feature of professional practice in Ireland. This implies important organisational challenges in ensuring that adult safeguarding responsibilities are delivered in ways that ensure positive outcomes for all stakeholders. In 2017, the Health Service Executive (HSE) commissioned a Rapid Realist Literature Review (RRR) in order to inform and underpin their review of Safeguarding Vulnerable Persons at Risk of Abuse - National Policy and Procedures (2014) [1]. Methods: A RRR approach was employed to review the national and international literature relating to Adult Safeguarding Legislation, Policy and Practice in five jurisdictions; England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Australia and Canada. This desk-based evaluation set out to address the question ‘what works, for whom and in what circumstances?’ [2] Results: In all jurisdictions reviewed, key to striking a balance between protection and rights is the participation of the ‘adult at risk’ in the safeguarding process including access to independent advocacy to help promote autonomy. Central to all safeguarding policies is the need to make inter-agency working obligatory and to ensure policies and processes are in place to do so. Sustainable resources at the preventative and protection stage are imperative in addition to adequately resourced adult safeguarding teams. The introduction of legislation can offer jurisdictions the opportunity to consider the introduction of measurable outcomes and if appropriate, reprioritise service provision across the preventative-protection continuum. Conclusion: Adult safeguarding policy and legislation must ensure that interventionist and compulsory measures to protect do not excessively restrict the rights of the individual.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207