MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1829014525 · doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000053

Key Considerations for Preventing Suicide in Older Adults

2011· article· en· W1829014525 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrisis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)MedicineMedical emergencyPsychologyGerontologyComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The number of older adults is growing rapidly. This fact, combined with the high rates of suicide in later life, indicates that many more older adults will die by their own hands before rigorous trials can be conducted to fully understand the best approaches to prevent late life suicide. AIMS: To disseminate key considerations for interventions addressing senior suicidal behavior. METHODS: An international expert panel has reviewed and discussed key considerations for interventions against suicide in older adults based on existing evidence, where available, and expert opinion. RESULTS: A set of new key considerations is divided into: universal, selective, and indicated prevention as well as a section on general considerations. CONCLUSIONS: The suggestions span a wide range and are offered for consideration by local groups preparing new interventions, as well as large scale public health care planning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.258 · 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