DETECTING UNDUE HARM ARISING FROM ELDER ABUSE SCREENING: INNOVATIVE METHODS FROM THE EASI-LTC© PILOT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Screening for elder abuse can cause victims to experience feelings of unpleasantness and/or relive painful memories which can be an ethical concern. Ensuring the safety of all participants/users, in our case long-term care (LTC) residents, is of the utmost importance. Drawing from approaches used in the intimate partner violence and clinical trials literature, we developed a novel typology of harm and a series of procedures to evaluate any negative consequences that might be incurred as a result of participating in the Piloting the Elder Abuse Suspicion Index-long term care©: A Mixed Methods Feasibility Study. Our typology includes subjective and objective reporting from a multitude of sources, including: 1) Interviews with LTC residents using a modified Consequences of Screening Tool, adapted from MacMillan et al, 2009; Opinions of the 2) Study social worker conducting validation assessments and 3) LTC residents and institutional stakeholders; 4) Feedback from study research assistants who administer the tool using a specialized Adverse Events Form; and 5) Chart reviews. Procedures include the creation of an independent interdisciplinary pilot study safety committee, chaired by a geriatric psychiatrist and convened to conduct interim evaluations after the first 5, 10, and 20 residents have participated, the liberation of social work teams, who are to be on standby and available to intervene as necessary, and the creation of participant resource cards displaying pertinent phone numbers for immediate assistance. To our knowledge, this is the first elder abuse study to conduct a thorough analysis of study-induced harm.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".