Building a case for understanding the lived experiences of males who attempt suicide in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicide is a serious public health concern in Alberta, with, on average, over 400 Albertans taking their own lives annually. The case for concern is even more pronounced when one considers that for younger Albertans (those aged less than 45 years), suicide is the second leading cause of death. While trends in rates of suicide fluctuate over time, it is important to note that suicide rates for males have been at least three times higher than the corresponding rates for females since the 1950s. Furthermore, these differences have increased so that, by the 1990s the rate for male suicide was four times higher than that of females. In addition, rates are increasing at a faster pace in younger cohorts. Despite the existence of numerous positivistically orientated studies, and the introduction of a range of strategies to help prevent suicide, significant reductions in suicide rates have not been achieved. Similarly, while there is a substantial literature on the issue of suicide in Canada, there remain many gaps in our knowledge. Our understanding of the experiences and the meanings attributed to these experiences that motivate contemporary Albertan males to attempt suicide is far from complete. In order to design interventions to help reduce the suicide rate, whether these are interventions at the preprimary, primary or secondary level of care, it is necessary to gain a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of this highly complex behaviour. Consequently, there is an urgent need to better understand the particular life experiences and the meanings that individuals attach to these experiences. Accordingly, this paper makes the case for the use of hermeneutic, phenomenological investigations, as a means to further elucidate the lived experiences of suicidal Alberta males.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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".