MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982743367 · doi:10.1111/jora.12098

Meaningful Youth Engagement as a Protective Factor for Youth Suicidal Ideation

2013· article· en· W1982743367 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Lynne Armstrong, Ian Manion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research on Adolescence · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental HealthSaint Paul University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental Health
KeywordsSuicidal ideationPsychologyIdeationClinical psychologyProtective factorMeaning (existential)Depressive symptomsAdolescent suicideSuicide preventionSuicide ideationDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlPsychiatryPsychotherapistMedicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Youth suicide is a leading cause of mortality. Greater still is the prevalence of suicidal behavior and ideation. In this study with 813 secondary school students, we explored youth engagement in structured extracurricular activities as a possible protective factor for suicidal ideation. Personally meaningful youth engagement significantly moderated the relationships between depressive symptoms, risk behaviors, self‐esteem, and social support in the prediction of suicidal ideation. Specifically, the more meaning found in engagement, the less likely youth were to report suicidal thoughts in spite of risk factors. Acknowledging limitations, a focus on engaging youth in well‐selected activities of interest might represent a nonstigmatizing approach to universal prevention. Further research into the mechanisms of such an approach is warranted.

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations43
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research on AdolescenceSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207