MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247095889 · doi:10.1093/geront/gnv622.05

ENHANCING THE EMPIRICAL UNDERSTANDING OF FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION

2015· article· en· W4247095889 on OpenAlexaff
J. E. Peterson, David Burnes, Mia Wells, Mark S. Lachs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Gerontologist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBusiness and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessFinanceEmpirical researchMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

team member survey, and Advisory Council reviews. Iterative analysis resulted in understanding the case review process utilized in Los Angeles County. Results: A process map of key elements was developed: 1)multidisciplinary data collection, 2)key decisions for consideration, and 3)strategic actions utilized by an interprofessional team focused on elder justice. Discussion: Findings are supported by the Abuse Intervention-Prevention Model (AIM). Elder abuse forensic centers provide a process designed to improve efficiency and outcomes of safety, client welfare, and protection of assets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.278
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.025 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe GerontologistSame topicBusiness and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207