How Often, or How Many Ways: Clarifying the Relationship Between Non-Suicidal Self-Injury and Suicidality
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
This study clarified the association of maladaptive, potentially self-damaging behaviors with suicidality. Specifically, we examined whether greater frequency (i.e., how often) or greater versatility (i.e., how many ways) of several self-damaging behaviors, including non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), substance use, and disordered eating, increased risk for suicide. Participants who engaged in NSSI (N = 142) completed questionnaires assessing suicidal and self-damaging behavior at baseline and engagement in suicidal behaviors (e.g., ideation, attempts, talking about suicide) 3 months later. Results suggest that the versatility rather than frequency of self-damaging behaviors is most robustly associated with suicide risk. Engaging in multiple methods of NSSI and using a greater number of illicit substances were positively associated with suicide risk. Further, versatility of NSSI interacted with depression to predict suicide risk at 3-month follow-up such that highly depressed participants who engaged in more methods of NSSI exhibited highest risk, whereas those who engaged in more methods with low depression exhibited the lowest risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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