Assessing Capacity within a Context of Abuse or Neglect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[enIn 2000, with the implementation of Part III of the Adult Guardianship Act: Support and Assistance for Abused and Neglected Adults, British Columbia formally recognized the need to examine issues of decisional capacity of older adults within a context of abuse or neglect. Interestingly, however, although the test of capacity was clearly laid out under this piece of legislation, the potential influence that living in a situation of abuse or neglect may have on how the person makes decisions is not explicitly addressed. Similarly, this is a missing link throughout the literature discussing decisional capacity in older adults. This gap exists despite the fact that determining the protection” needs of someone who is being abused and/or neglected often hinges directly on that person's decisional capacity. The purpose of this article is to examine the unique aspects associated with assessing and determining capacity for older adults who are living in a situation of abuse or neglect. The specific objectives are to: (a) examine how living in a situation of abuse or neglect may influence the determination of capacity and (b) explore the implications of conducting an assessment within a potentially abusive context. The legal notion of undue influence and the psychological concept of relational connection are introduced as potentially important for considering decision making within this context.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".