MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067437462 · doi:10.1111/sltb.12068

Differentiating Suicide Attempters from Suicide Ideators: A Critical Frontier for Suicidology Research

2013· article· en· W2067437462 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

VenueSuicide and Life-Threatening Behavior · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidologySuicide preventionPsychologyImpulsivityPsychiatryDepression (economics)Poison controlSuicide attemptClinical psychologyParasuicideHuman factors and ergonomicsMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most individuals who consider suicide do not make suicide attempts. It is therefore critical to identify which suicide ideators are at greatest risk of acting on their thoughts. However, few seminal theories of suicide address which ideators go on to make attempts. In addition, perhaps surprisingly, most oft-cited risk factors for suicide-such as psychiatric disorders, depression, hopelessness, and even impulsivity-distinguish poorly between those who attempt suicide and those who only consider suicide. This special section of Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior serves to highlight this knowledge gap and provide new data on differences (and similarities) between suicide attempters and suicide ideators.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.271 · 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