The Perspectives of Young Adults on Recovery from Repeated Suicide-Related Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This qualitative study sought to develop an understanding of how young adults between the ages of 18-25 years, who have a history of two or more suicide attempts, transition away from high-risk suicide-related behaviors. AIMS: To understand the transition to safer behaviors and to provide clinical suggestions for those who provide care to this population. METHODS: Sixteen young adults under the age of 25 years, who had completed at least one cycle of intervention for people with repeated suicide attempts, participated in this qualitative, grounded theory study. RESULTS: The young adults described a pathway that included three major elements: (a) "living to die", (b) ambivalence and tipping/turning points, and (c) a process of recovery that included small steps or phases (pockets of recovery) toward life. The journey was not always experienced as steady movement forward, and the potential for relapse either in the young people's behavior or their wish to engage in their relationship with death could ebb and flow. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians need to be aware that the struggle to live is a process involving a fluid pathway moving between three key elements.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".