MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1754822279 · doi:10.1177/002580240104100202

A Review of Suicide within the State Hospital, Carstairs 1972–1996

2001· review· en· W1754822279 on OpenAlexaffabout
Louise Ramsay, Colin M. Gray, Tom White

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine Science and the Law · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)PsychiatryClozapinePrisonDistressState hospitalMaximum securitySuicide preventionInjury preventionSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Poison controlEmergency medicinePsychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This retrospective case note review describes the demographic, forensic and psychiatric backgrounds of 14 in-patient suicides in a maximum secure hospital. The majority were schizophrenic with chronic treatment-resistant illnesses, who had committed proportionally more violent offences, had a history of serious self-injury but no recognized clear depressive episodes. This profile is markedly different from that reported in general psychiatric in-patients, out-patients and suicides in prison, but is similar to that described in a maximum secure hospital in the United States and in long-stay patients in Canada. Many of the patients had continued to experience significantly subjective distress over many years. The clinical relevance of this series is discussed in the context of the assessment of suicidal intent in psychotic patients. We speculate that the decrease in in-patient suicides in the State Hospital may be due to a less restrictive ward milieu, increased staff/patient ratios, or the introduction of Clozapine.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.324 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine Science and the LawSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207