MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Suicide Among Women with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders

2009· review· en· W2012489088 on OpenAlexaff
Mary V. Seeman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatric Practice · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Psychological interventionSubstance abuseMedicinePsychosisSuicide attemptDiagnosis of schizophreniaSuicide preventionMental illnessClinical psychologyPsychologyPoison controlMedical emergencyMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents five cases of suicide in women attending a schizophrenia clinic and demonstrates that, in the presence of psychosis, women can act impulsively and aggressively and can use lethal means to end their lives. If generalizations can be made from the stories of these five women, then multiple prior admissions, comorbid psychiatric and substance abuse diagnoses, lack of negative symptoms, full awareness of illness, and current crisis appear to constitute important risk variables. Female-specific factors associated with suicide in this sample were childhood sexual abuse, intimate partner abuse, and child loss. The author, who knew these five women very well over a long period of time, concludes that the deaths might have been prevented by critical interventions such as timely hospital admission, suicide screening prior to hospital discharge, safety check of the immediate environment, in-depth explanation of therapeutic decisions, and complete assessment of the personal meaning attached to recent events.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatric PracticeSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207