Belief and Disbelief in the Existence of Genetic Risk Factors for Suicide: Cross-Cultural Comparisons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence for widespread disbelief in the genetics of suicide, despite recent research progress in this area and convergent evidence supporting a role for genetic factors. This study analyzed the beliefs held in 8 samples (total N = 1224) of various types (psychology, medical, and various undergraduates, psychology graduates, and the general population) from 6 countries located on 3 continents (Austria, Canada, Malaysia, Romania, United Kingdom, and the USA). Endorsement rates for the existence of genetic risk factors for suicide ranged from 26% and 30% (Austrian psychology undergraduates and general population) to around 50% (psychology undergraduates in the USA and United Kingdom). In the 8 samples, respondents' sex, age, religiosity, political orientation, and other demographic variables were, for the most part, unrelated, but overall knowledge about suicide throughout was related positively to endorsement rates. Consistent with previous research, across a considerable variety of sample types and cultural settings there was no evidence for a clear majority believing in genetic bases for suicide.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".