MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990075997 · doi:10.1080/07481180302890

THE IMPACT OF GUN CONTROL (BILL C-51) ON SUICIDE IN CANADA

2003· article· en· W1990075997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Antoon A. Leenaars, Ferenc Moksony, David Lester, Susanne Wenckstern

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGun controlLegislatureSuicide preventionPoison controlLegislationInjury preventionPopulationHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthControl (management)CriminologyLawPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide is a multiply determined behavior, calling for diverse prevention efforts. Gun control has been proposed as an important component of society's response, and an opportunity for studying the effects of legislative gun control laws on suicide rates was provided by Canada's Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 (Bill C-51). This article reviews previous studies of the impact of this act on the total population of Canada and subpopulations by age and gender and, in addition, presents the results of 2 new studies: a different method of analysis, an interrupted time-series analysis, and the results of a multiple regression analysis that controls for some social variables. It appears that Bill C-51 may have had an impact on suicide rates, even after controls for social variables.

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)0.009
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207