Youth suicide as a "wild" problem: implications for prevention practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intent of this article is to explore the idea that youth suicide -which is conceptualized here as an unstable, historically contingent, and unruly problem - cannot be solved, nor contained, through an exclusive reliance on pre-determined, universal or standardized interventions. Informed by a constructionist perspective, social problems like youth suicide are understood as constituted through language and other relational practices. Based on a close reading of the mainstream school-based suicide prevention literature it is argued that youth suicide has largely been constructed as a tame problem, and this in turn places certain limits on what might be thought, said or done in response. By re-imagining youth suicide as a wild and unstable problem that is deeply embedded in local, historical, and relational contexts, more expansive possibilities for thinking, learning and responding might become available. Implications for school-based suicide prevention are discussed. Keywords: suicide, youth, prevention Copyrights belong to the Author(s). Suicidology Online (SOL) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal publishing under the Creative Commons License 3.0. Language: en
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 | 0.029 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".