MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976710621 · doi:10.1080/10673220600968662

Predicting and Preventing Suicide: Do We Know Enough to Do Either?

2006· review· en· W1976710621 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Paris

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Review of Psychiatry · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSuicide preventionPopulationMental healthMedicinePsychiatryPsychologyPoison controlInjury preventionMedical emergencyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In population studies, many risk factors are associated with suicide completion. Yet we cannot accurately predict whether any individual patient will die by suicide. Completers are a distinct population from attempters and do not necessarily present for treatment by mental health professionals. Research on suicide prevention has yielded some promising findings but has not shown that interventions produce definitive results. The strongest evidence for successful prevention derives from reducing access to means. A population-based strategy may be more effective than a high-risk strategy focusing on patients with suicidal ideas or attempts. Much more research is needed before developing effective suicide prevention programs.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.329 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations56
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard Review of PsychiatrySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207