Evaluating an Integrated APS–Elder Advocate Intervention Model in the State of Maine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite recommendations to include a distinct intervention phase in Adult Protective Services (APS), most APS programs close cases following investigation/substantiation phases without engaging in a defined intervention phase. This study implements and evaluates a novel APS service planning/intervention model in the state of Maine. Using an experimental efficacy trial design with stratified random sampling at the level of Maine APS offices, this study compares standard APS care with an enhanced/integrated APS intervention model involving “elder advocates”. Advocates were trained in motivational interviewing, supported decision-making, teaming, restorative justice, and goal attainment scaling to develop capacity to work with both the older adult victim and perpetrator and to strengthen the family and social systems surrounding the victim-perpetrator dyad. This presentation will present results on the efficacy of this integrated APS/elder advocate model and discuss the challenges and successes in conducting elder abuse intervention research in collaboration with APS and APS clients. Part of a symposium sponsored by Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of Elderly People Interest Group.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".