MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050521012 · doi:10.1080/07481180601100491

Hope Theory: A Framework for Understanding Suicidal Action

2007· article· en· W2050521012 on OpenAlex

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

VenueDeath Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction theory (sociology)PsychologyAction (physics)Agency (philosophy)PsychotherapistSuicide preventionPoison controlSocial psychologySociologyMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines C. R. Snyder's (1994 Snyder , C. R. ( 1994 ). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here . New York : Free Press . [Google Scholar] 2000a Snyder , C. R. ( 2000a ). Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications . San Diego : Academic Press .[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) theory of hope and its application for understanding suicide. Strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the suicide literature are outlined, and A. T. Beck's theory of hopelessness is compared with Snyder's hope theory. Hope theory constructs are used to examine the relationship of suicide to hope/hopelessness, goals, pathways thinking, and agency thinking. This critical review is intended to broaden our theoretical understanding of suicide and is meant to form the basis for future empirical investigation of suicide-related behavior using the framework of hope theory. Implications for suicide prevention programs and approaches to treating suicidal individuals are outlined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.221 · 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