MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046712713 · doi:10.1080/13811118.2013.833151

Professionals' Reactions Following a Patient's Suicide: Review and Future Investigation

2014· review· en· W2046712713 on OpenAlex
Monique Séguin, Vincent Bordeleau, Marc‐Simon Drouin, Dolores Angela Castelli-Dransart, François Giasson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Suicide Research · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceSuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychologyInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthMedicineClinical psychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to review the literature and make suggestions for further investigation into the topic of professionals' reactions following a patient's suicide. An extensive search of the literature has been undertaken using computer database search. Even if findings are heterogenous, most studies suggest limited stress-related or affective-related reactions for the majority of respondents. Whereas, findings with regards to the impact on professional practice are consistent in identifying important consequences in the way professionals conduct their clinical assessment and reach treatment decisions after a patient's suicide. Future research should investigate how this event changes the clinician's personal growth and capacity to establish a therapeutic alliance with other suicidal patients.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.319 · 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