MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981899218 · doi:10.1037/h0088171

Review of Suicide in Canada.

2000· article· en· W1981899218 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith S. Dobson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCriminologyPsychiatryPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ANTOON A. LEENAARS, SUSANNE WENCKSTERN, ISAAC SAKINOFSKY, RONALD J. DYCK, MICHAEL. J. KRAL, and ROGER C. BLAND (eds.) Suicide in Canada Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998, xxiv + 488 pp. (ISBN 0-8020-7791-9, C$29.95, Softcover) Reviewed by KEITH DOBSON Suicide in Canada is a major volume dedicated to an acute public health phenomenon in this country. book is divided into nine sections. Although there is overlap among the sections, they retain distinctions that warrant their separation. sections (history; epidemiology and the Canadian scene; theory and research; first nations and Inuit; family, community, and government approaches; youth suicide, schools, and communities; distress centers; survivors; the right to die) are laid out in a logical order. Each section has three or four chapters, and among these chapters are some that provide a theoretical approach to the issue, and others that focus on distinctively Canadian experiences or themes. Where possible, the editors have obtained experts on suicide in this country to write about programs, policies, or local initiatives, thus providing a Canadian focus to the book. For example, in the section entitled The Right to Die there is extensive discussion of the Sue Rodriguez case and its legal, moral, and practical implications. volume is appealing for its use of chapters that vary from being very formal and research focused, to those that are highly experiential and voiced in the first person. For example, the chapters in the sections on epidemiology, theory, and research are generally focused on the description of average tendencies, statistical summaries, and on developing and testing theoretical models of suicide. In large measure, except for the Canadian emphasis in epidemiology, these chapters could appear in any sound academic treatise on the nature of suicide. In contrast, the section on suicide among first nations and Inuit people makes greater use of narrative and descriptions of experience. Although one could argue that a certain unevenness emerges as a consequence of the different ways in which these chapters are written, it must be recognized that our understanding of different aspects of suicide is itself not even and that varied approaches to understanding this phenomenon are therefore justified. Further, with no less than 57 individual contributors to this volume, there is little surprise that different writers have elected to use different methods for writing and presenting their contribution. reader of this volume is led ineluctably to the following conclusions: -Suicide is, or ought to be, a very real concern in contemporary Canadian society. -Although rates of suicide vary among different groups within Canada, their rates have remained fairly constant over time. - Certain populations are especially at risk (e.g., first nations and Inuit people; youth; survivors of suicide; the terminally ill) and demand concerted efforts at understanding and intervention aimed at the special circumstances that put them at higher risk of suicide than the population at large. - Our models of understanding and intervention with suicide, while certainly now more advanced than in previous years, are still not adequate to respond to the challenge of suicide in Canada. …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.030
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.007

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207