Suicidal Ideators without Major Depression—Whom are We Not Reaching?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe individuals who reported suicidal ideation but neither met the criteria for major depression (MD) nor were in contact with mental health services in the previous year. METHOD: Data were drawn from the Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health and Well-Being (CCHS 1.2). Conducted in 2002, the CCHS 1.2 was a cross-sectional population-based survey of 36 984 Canadian household residents aged 15 years or more. First, we described the individuals who reported suicidal ideation, were without MD, and were not in contact with mental health services (n = 584) as well as their nonsuicidal counterparts (n = 31 382) based on various demographic and health status variables. Second, to analyse whether these same variables are associated with mental health service contact(s) among suicidal individuals without MD, we compared those who were in contact with mental health services (n = 209) to those who were not (n = 584). RESULTS: Almost one-half (47.9%) of the suicidal ideators were without both MD and a mental health service contact in the previous year. Individuals in this group were younger and exhibited greater morbidity than their nonsuicidal counterparts (without MD or mental health service contact) but did not differ by sex. Although male and female respondents were equally represented among the suicidal ideators without MD, male respondents were less likely to contact mental health services. Such contact was more likely among female respondents and individuals with an anxiety disorder. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the need for further research evaluating early intervention programs that succeed in capturing suicidal youths, particularly male youths.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".