MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411505074 · doi:10.1007/s10823-025-09538-9

Distinguishing Abuse from Caregiving in Rural Nigeria: Older Adults’ Perspectives

2025· article· en· W4411505074 on OpenAlexaff
Tochukwu Jonathan Okolie, Patricia Uju Agbawodikeizu, Prince Chiagozie Ekoh, Ngozi E. Chukwu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectElder abusePsychologyGerontologyLocal government areaGovernment (linguistics)Suicide preventionMedicinePoison controlLocal governmentPsychiatryEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Nigeria, older adults face numerous challenges that undermine their well-being and overall life satisfaction. These challenges include but are not limited to health challenges due to biological consequences of ageing, ageing stereotypes, abuse, and neglect. This study explored abuse of rural-dwelling older persons within informal caregiving settings, focusing on older adults' perspectives of some caregiving styles adopted by their caregivers. Data were obtained using semi-structured interviews with 16 older adults 60 years and above, in a rural community in Awgu Local Government Area (LGA), Enugu state. The data were analysed thematically. Findings revealed that some abusive behaviours that pass as appropriate caregiving styles include restricted movements, forcing older people to eat or take medications and collecting their money/properties. Most of the sampled older adults were found to have negative perceptions about these caregiving styles, while other participants downplayed them as a regular caregiving pattern. The study recommends that caregivers undergo training on appropriate styles for caring for their older adults in rural Nigeria.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural GerontologySame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207