A QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF RISE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES CASEWORKERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our understanding of effective elder abuse and self-neglect (EASN) response interventions is limited. Adult Protective Services (APS), the primary agency responsible for responding to EASN, lacks a coherent, conceptually driven, prolonged intervention phase. Informed by ecological-systems, client-centered, and relational perspectives and adapting evidence-based modalities from other fields, the RISE intervention addresses this systems gap and compliments and augments APS services. Based on a three-year pilot project involving a partnership between RISE and Maine APS, the current study conducted a qualitative evaluation of RISE, from the perspective of APS caseworkers (n=14) who worked with RISE. The purpose of this evaluation was to understand RISE strengths, areas for improvement, and qualities of the RISE/APS partnership. Findings suggest APS workers perceive that RISE benefits clients, complements the scope and nature of APS, enhances APS caseworker well-being, and reduces repeat APS cases. Further APS/RISE collaboration and clarification on RISE role responsibilities and referral eligibilities represent areas of growth. This study provides preliminary evidence for RISE as a community-based EASN intervention in partnership with APS
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 | 0.040 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".