MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002509038 · doi:10.1002/bsl.618

MMPI inmate profiles: suicide completers, suicide attempters, and non‐suicidal controls

2004· article· en· W2002509038 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Daigle

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences & the Law · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-PinelUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryPsychiatrySuicide attemptClinical psychologyPsychologySuicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionPersonalityMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) were compared for three groups of male inmates in federal penitentiaries: 47 suicide completers, 43 suicide attempters and, 123 non-suicidal controls. Analyses show that the groups differed on all 10 clinical scales and on at least 8 after Bonferroni correction. Attempters obtained the highest scores on 4 of 8 scales; they also posted the highest scores on 3 others, but differences were significant only against non-suicidal controls. Completers posted the highest score on only one scale (Mf), but the difference was significant only against non-suicidal controls. All told, completers proved more similar to non-suicidal controls than to attempters. Regarding profiles, completers are more strongly correlated with non-suicidal controls (r=0.95) than with attempters (r=0.86); non-suicidal controls are less strongly correlated with attempters (r=0.88). The fact that attempters seem more pathological than the others can mislead clinicians screening for suicide risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations40
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral Sciences & the LawSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207