WHAT DOES SUCCESS MEAN IN THE CONTEXT OF ELDER ABUSE INTERVENTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF VICTIMS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adult protective services (APS) and other community-based agencies respond to hundreds of thousands of elder abuse cases each year in the United States; however, little is known about what constitutes success in the context of elder abuse response intervention. This study explored the meaning of elder abuse intervention success from the perspective of victims themselves toward the development of a victim-centric taxonomy of outcomes. Guided by a phenomenological qualitative methodology, this study conducted in-person, semi-structured interviews with a sample of elder abuse victims (n = 30) recruited from APS in the states of Maine, New York, and California, as well as a community-based elder abuse social service program in New York City. To enhance trustworthiness, two researchers independently analyzed transcript data to identify key transcript statements into themes. Outcomes of success were identified across broad domains related to the victim, perpetrator, victim-perpetrator relationship, family system, and home environment. Specifically, common themes represented outcomes related to victim safety, autonomy, social support, and state of mind; perpetrator independence and accountability; and victim-perpetrator separation. For decades, the field of elder abuse has struggled to understand how to define success in the context of community-based intervention from a client-centered perspective. The taxonomy developed in this study provides a comprehensive and conceptually organized range of successful outcomes to serve as infrastructure for the development of meaningful intervention outcome measures. This study represents one of the largest efforts to understand and integrate the perspectives and needs of victims into elder abuse intervention practice/research to date.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".