Bibliographic record
Abstract
The abuse and mistreatment of older people is recognised internationally as a significant abuse of elders’ human rights. ‘Scandals’ and inquiries into failures to protect older people from abuse in health and social care systems rarely address, and still less challenge, the influence and impacts the social, economic, regulatory and cultural contexts have on elder abuse and on the actions taken to protect older people from mistreatment. This critical and challenging book identifies those influences and the contexts to policy and practice in adult safeguarding. A core intention of the book is the identification and critical appraisal of the influence that contextual factors have on adult safeguarding decision-making. In doing that, the book argues strongly for the development of critical, ethically-driven, research and theory-informed policy and practice to protect elders from mistreatment. Drawing on findings of original UK research and framed in an international context, the book illustrates ways in which ageism, under-resourced services to older people, target-driven health and social care policy and services, and organisational cultures of blame and scape goating, form a powerful, yet invisible backcloth, to elder abuse, and to the actions professionals take or do not take to safeguard older people from mistreatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.904 | 0.860 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".