Facteurs de protection reliés au risque suicidaire chez des adolescents : Comparaison de jeunes du milieu scolaire et de jeunes en centres jeunesse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette etude evalue la relation entre le risque suicidaire et quatre facteurs de protection, soit l'estime de soi, les strategies de coping, le controle de soi et le soutien social. L'echantillon est compose de877 adolescents qui forment deux groupes de comparaison, soit 650 jeunes provenant du milieu scolaire et 227 jeunes recevant des services de readaptation des centres jeunesse. L'objectif de cette recherche vise a verifier si la presence des facteurs de protection varie selon le risque suicidaire, selon le milieu d'appartenance et selon le sexe. Les resultats revelent que les jeunes des centres jeunesse presentent un niveau de risque suicidaire plus eleve et des facteurs de protection plus faibles que les jeunes du groupe scolaire. Des liens significatifs sont trouves entre les variables de l'etude et le risque suicidaire. Parmi les facteurs de protection evalues, l'estime de soi et le coping non productif sont les deux variables les plus fortement associees au risque suicidaire. Ces resultats encouragent le developpement et l'application de programmes d'intervention visant le renforcement d'une estime de soi positive et l'apprentissage de strategies efficaces d'adaptation aupres des adolescents suicidaires.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".