Dignity and human rights-based care and support for older persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global increase in the older population has led to a rise in mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of aging cohorts. This demographic shift increases the risk of human rights violations driven by ageism, mentalism, and ableism. However, older persons often face unique challenges in exercising their rights due to variations in autonomy, cognitive function, and care needs. A human rights-based approach to mental health care must explicitly address these nuances. This paper examines how dignity—a fundamental human right—can be meaningfully operationalized in care models. We propose a structured, evidence-based approach to care that is grounded in dignity, human rights, and the principles of the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing. This framework also emphasizes trauma-sensitive care, recognizing the vulnerabilities of older persons in institutional settings.
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 | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".