MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1734860249 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0263

Suicide in Israel: 1985–1997

2002· article· en· W1734860249 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ricardo Nachman, Ornit Yanai, Leib Goldin, Marnina Swartz, Yoram Barak, Jehuda Hiss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicide methodsSuicide preventionDemographyPoison controlInjury preventionDepression (economics)MedicineOccupational safety and healthSuicide ratesImmigrationPsychiatryHuman factors and ergonomicsMedical emergencyGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in suicide rates in Israel over a 13-year period. METHOD: All cases of autopsy-confirmed suicide in Israel from 1985 to 1997 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: An overall annual increase in suicide rates, with rates in men 3 times higher than those in women, was observed. Suicide rates were highest in the second and third decades of life. Unlike Western countries where gunshot wounds are the most common method of suicide for men and poisoning is most common for women, asphyxiation by hanging was the most common method used by men in Israel, followed by firearm wounds and jumping from heights. In women, however, jumping from heights was the most common method, followed by hanging and poisoning. CONCLUSION: Increasing rates of suicide may be associated with waves of immigration to Israel, increased substance abuse and depression and the political and social climate. Further study to examine the precipitating factors is warranted.

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)0.001
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations28
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207