SERVICE PROVIDERS' PERSPECTIVES OF UNDERREPORTING ABUSE OF OLDER ADULTS IN ALBERTA, CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Minimal research has investigated disclosure/non-disclosure of abuse of older adults. To address this gap, this exploratory, qualitative study gathered the perspectives on reporting of elder abuse from 10 service providers working with elder abuse survivors across Alberta. Face-to-face and online interviews were conducted, audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Four major barriers to abuse disclosure for older adults were identified. First, complex parent/adult-child relationships reduce the likelihood of disclosure among older adults who are experiencing abuse perpetrated by a family member; the corollary is that disclosure for non-familial perpetrators results in higher rates of disclosure. Second, older adults residing in rural and remote locations face greater barriers to disclosure compared to those residing in urban/suburban settings. Third, older adults are unlikely to report even if they recognize that they are in a situation of abuse, as a consequence of their internalized ageist beliefs that policing and social services agencies have more pressing needs to address than their well-being. Finally, local policing bodies and legal authorities may inadequately serve older adults facing abuse, particularly in cases of non-physical abuse, due to prioritized client and community needs. This study highlights the need for additional supports and service provision for vulnerable older adults in Alberta, specifically for those residing in rural and remote regions and those dependent on family members. It also points to the critical need for a greater understanding and awareness of violence against older adults among the general public and those tasked with ensuring the safety and well-being of 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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".