Suicide Mortality by Occupation in Canada, 1991–2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the association between occupation and risk of suicide among working-age men and women in Canada. METHOD: This study of suicide mortality over an 11-year period is based on a broadly representative 15% sample of the noninstitutionalized population of Canada aged 30 to 69 years at cohort inception. Age-standardized mortality rates (ASMRs) and rate ratios were calculated for men and women in 5 categories of skill level and 80 specific occupational groups, as well as for people not occupationally active. RESULTS: The suicide mortality rate was 20.1/100 000 person years for occupationally active men (during 9 600 000 person years of follow-up) and 5.3/100 000 person years for occupationally active women (during 8 100 000 person years of follow-up). Among occupationally active men, elevated rates of suicide mortality were observed for 9 occupational groups and protective effects were observed for 6 occupational groups. Among women, elevated rates of suicide were observed in 4 occupational groups and no protective effects were observed. For men and women, ASMRs for suicide were inversely related to skill level. CONCLUSIONS: The limited number of associations between occupational groups and suicide risk observed in this study suggests that, with few exceptions, the characteristics of specific occupations do not substantially influence the risk for suicide. There was a moderate gradient in suicide mortality risk relative to occupational skill level. Suicide prevention strategies in occupational settings should continue to emphasize efforts to restrict and limit access to lethal means, one of the few suicide prevention policies with proven effectiveness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".