The experience of suicidal, substance‐abusing men with severe personality disorders in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This qualitative study examines the experience of suicidal, substance‐abusing men with severe personality disorders presenting to an emergency department (ED). Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with ED patients ( n = 25), ED physicians ( n = 5), ED nurses ( n = 6), other ED staff ( n = 6) and family physicians (FPs) ( n = 7). Interviews were tape‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and managed using a comprehensive qualitative software program N6. Transcripts were coded using an iterative process and team involvement to capture emergent themes. Negative expectations were found to be held by participants from all perspectives, patients, ED staff and FPs, and these overarching negative expectations appear to interact with prior negative experiences and current negative behaviours to foster negative outcomes from these encounters. The suicidal men, ED staff and FPs offered suggestions, both systemic and within the ED interactions between providers and patients, that could minimize negative outcomes. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".