MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1580349733 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2007-0016

The Portrayal of Suicide and Mental Illness: A Province-Wide Survey of Nova Scotia

2007· article· en· W1580349733 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaMental illnessNova (rocket)GeographyPsychologyMental healthPsychiatryArchaeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study tested the feasibility of a surveillance system of the media's portrayal of suicide and mental illness in Nova Scotia. The general public was asked to monitor nonfiction media in the province using standardized checklists over 6 months. The checklists were available on the World Wide Web and various locations in the community, and participants could identify either appropriate or inappropriate coverage. The researchers received 414 submissions covering 366 media items (304 on mental illness and 62 on suicide) during the 6-month survey: 311 from print media and 55 from radio and television. Ratings showed good agreement. On most dimensions, the majority of media items were of good quality. However, details about getting appropriate help were included in only 8.5% of media reports. Items covering suicide were 3.5 times as likely to contain inappropriate content as those on mental illness (95% CI = 1.5–8.0). These results are guiding the development of media guidelines in Nova Scotia. The study also showed that the present methodology can be used to monitor any subsequent effect on the portrayal of mental illness and suicide in the media.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207