Culture and suicide: Korean-Canadian immigrants’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe culture- and context-specific suicidal behaviours among Korean-Canadian immigrants as a means to guiding the development of targeted culturally sensitive suicide prevention programmes. Design/methodology/approach – Fifteen Korean-Canadian immigrants who had experiences with suicidal behaviours (e.g. suicidal ideation, suicide attempts) participated in this qualitative research study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted for 30-90 minutes individually and constant comparison analysis methods were used to inductively derive recurrent prevailing themes from the interview data. Findings – The study findings reveal that causes and triggers for suicidal behaviours among Korean-Canadians most often emerged from academic and work pressures, estranged family and altered identities. Permeating these themes were deeply embedded cultural values, which according to the participants, could afford protection or heighten the risk for suicide. Research limitations/implications – By focussing only on first-generation Korean-Canadian immigrants, the results are limited in what they can reasonably say about other Canadian immigrant sub-groups. Practical implications – In light of the current research findings, mental health care providers should be cognizant of immigrant patients’ cultural backgrounds and life circumstances as a means to further understanding what underpins their risk for suicide. Originality/value – Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitation, this study contributes important empirical insights about Korean-Canadian immigrants’ suicidal ideation and risk/protective factors. This not only adds to the wider literature connecting culture and suicidality, it affirms the need for culture-specific research as a means to developing culturally sensitive mental health services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".