MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986268000 · doi:10.1080/13811118.2013.805639

Dimensions of Suicidality: Analyzing the Domains of the SIS-MAP Suicide Risk Assessment Instrument and the Development of a Brief Screener

2013· article· en· W1986268000 on OpenAlexaff
Megan Johnston, Charles Nelson, Amresh Shrivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Suicide Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionMedical emergencyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed at validating the domains of suicidality assessed by the Scale for Impact of Suicidality-Management, Assessment and Planning of Care (SIS-MAP) and creating a brief screener based on the full scale. A total of 50 individuals with suicidal ideation were given the SIS-MAP interview. Support was found for these domains of suicide risk; in particular, the subscales of ideation and protective factors for suicide risk were highly reliable. For each domain of suicidality, items most predictive of total risk index scores were selected to create a brief screener aimed at expediting the assessment process. The screener was reliable, predicted overall suicide risk index scores, and approached significance in predicting subsequent suicide attempts.

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)0.010
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Suicide ResearchSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207