MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015642136 · doi:10.1080/17450120600659010

Suicidal ideation in young males living in rural communities: Distance from school as a risk factor, youth engagement as a protective factor

2006· article· en· W2015642136 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Lynne Armstrong, Ian Manion

Bibliographic record

VenueVulnerable Children and Youth Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental HealthUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSuicidal ideationProtective factorRisk factorSuicide preventionPsychologyPoison controlInjury preventionRural areaSocial isolationHuman factors and ergonomicsDemographyClinical psychologyMedicineGerontologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Adolescent males living in rural communities are at particular risk for completed suicides. The objective of the present study was to examine geographic isolation and living distance from school as risk factors, and youth engagement in meaningful extracurricular activities and social support as protective factors, for suicidality. These relationships were examined in rural youth (n = 242; 128 females, 113 males, 1 missing data on gender). Distance from school was found to be a significant risk factor for males only, whereby living further away from school was associated with higher suicidal ideation. Youth engagement in extracurricular activities was significantly associated with lower levels of suicidality. The further a rural adolescent male lives from school was predictive of significantly lower rates of youth engagement. Policy implications concerning the initiation of structured activity programmes for at-risk youth are discussed.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVulnerable Children and Youth StudiesSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207