Therapeutic Effects of Psychological Autopsies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several authors have observed a therapeutic impact of the psychological autopsy on the interviewee, although they do not explicitly define what aspects of the process were helpful. AIMS: This article aims to identify these therapeutic effects and to discuss their potential impact on participants' narratives. METHODS: This article derives from 35 psychological autopsy interviews that were conducted to better understand adolescent and young adult suicide. Interviews lasted approximately 6 to 8 h each and consisted of both a battery of questionnaires and open-ended questions. They were mostly conducted with the families of the deceased, including parents and siblings, and on occasion were done with a single family member or friend. The time elapsed since the suicide ranged from 6 to 18 months. RESULTS: Psychological autopsies were helpful to interviewees in allowing them to find meaning in the suicide, to find purpose through their altruistic participation, to obtain psychological support, to experience connectedness with others, to accept the loss as real, and to gain insight into their functioning. Negative reactions to the interviews, albeit uncommon, are also briefly described. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that interviewers receive preparatory training and ongoing supervision while conducting interviews, to assure a reflective and professional stance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it