MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097589726

doi:10.1155/2011/861484 Review Article Evidence-Based Approaches to Remedy and Also to Prevent Abuse

2013· article· en· W7097589726 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElder abuseLegislationAttributionValue (mathematics)Empirical researchHealth careReview articleVulnerable adult
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Copyright © 2011 Donna M. Wilson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Elder abuse is a global issue, with an estimated 4–10 % of older persons in Canada abused each year. Although Canadian legislation has been created to prevent and punish the abuse of older persons living in nursing homes and other care facilities, communitydwelling older persons are at greater risk of abuse. This paper highlights the importance of evidence-based actions targeted at three determinants of health: (a) personal health practices and coping skills, (b) social support networks, and (c) social environments. Two research studies are profiled as case studies that illustrate the ready possibility and value of two specific types of actions on community-based older-person abuse. This paper argues for the immediate and widespread adoption of these evidence-based measures and for additional empirical evidence to guide the correction of underreporting of abuse, raise awareness of its serious nature, and increase options to not only stop it but ultimately prevent it. 1.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2380.111

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.140 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207