THE USE OF ELDERCARING COORDINATION FOR RESOLVING CASES INVOLVING OLDER ADULTS AND HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILY DYNAMICS
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
Abstract The Association for Conflict Resolution and The Florida Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts developed a model of Eldercaring Coordination for use in guardianship/probate cases involving high-conflict family dynamics that interfere with the well-being and safety of an older adult, limit adherence to court orders, impede court processes, or detract from the efficacy of guardianship and other appointments by the court. Developed by 40 organizations and entities in the United States and Canada, Eldercaring Coordination focuses on improving family dynamics so that the older adult, family members, and other involved parties can better work together and with professionals to make thoughtful and informed decisions and to support each other during times of transition. The purpose of this research was to gather information about participant experiences with Eldercaring Coordination. A pre-post test design was employed in which data were collected from older adults or their surrogates, family members and other court-ordered participants, judges and court administrators, and the Eldercaring Coordinators themselves. Findings from post-tests of 23 judges and court administrators revealed that the most common advantages of Eldercaring Coordination were that the intervention prioritized the older adults’ needs and improved family relationships. Post-test surveys from 17 Eldercaring Coordinators indicated some positive outcomes for older adults and their families, but also a need for enhanced authority, greater support from attorneys, and more cooperation from participants. Preliminary findings support the assertion that Eldercaring Coordination holds promise for intervening in high-conflict court cases involving older adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it