Preventing Harm to Vulnerable Older Adults: A Social Justice Perspective
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
This article presents the results from a qualitative study that explored how legislation in British Columbia, intended to protect vulnerable adults from harm, is implemented in practice. The legislation contains guiding principles that require the least restrictive and minimally intrusive form of support or intervention be used and that the adult’s wishes be respected. Sixteen professionals who work as elder abuse responders in British Columba participated in this study through interviews and a focus group. Fifteen of the study participants were social workers. Grounded theory method was used, and themes were identified. The first theme reveals that responders prefer to obtain older adult consent to service provider involvement, rather than forcing compliance by using statutory authority. The second theme reveals that responders may not be able to intervene in a minimally intrusive manner because of resource shortages and organizational structural issues. These findings have human rights and social justice implications.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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