MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395090038 · doi:10.21926/obm.geriatr.2401274

What Do We Know about an Invisible Issue? Results of a Scoping Review of Elder Abuse and Gender and Sexual Minorities

2024· review· en· W4395090038 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jen Marchbank, Kathleen Reed, Claire Robson, Gloria Gutman, Balbir Gurm

Bibliographic record

VenueOBM Geriatrics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic UniversityVancouver Island UniversitySimon Fraser University
FundersWomen and Gender Equality CanadaSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyElder abuseSexual abuseSocial psychologyCriminologyMedicineHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elder abuse occurs to older adults who are members of gender and sexual minorities (GSM). Whilst most of that abuse is similar to that experienced by their heterosexual and cisgender peers GSM older adults face particular vulnerabilities due to their life experiences and changes. In this article we report on our findings from a literature search and knowledge synthesis, conducted as part of a larger project to inform Canadian policy makers working to eliminate gender and sexuality-based inequalities. The review included literature on GSM and the experience of elder abuse produced in the previous decade (2013-23). A six-month scoping review was conducted via a staged approach including discovery layer searches; database specific searches; Google scholar and citation examination searches; and general Google searches.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0280.031
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOBM GeriatricsSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207