Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002), approximately one million people died as a result of suicide in the year 2000. Perhaps more worrisome, evidence provided by the WHO (2002) indicates that the global rate of suicide has continued to rise since 1950. Consequently, suicide should be regarded as a global problem and one that is increasing in magnitude. Drawing predominantly on policy and empirical literature emanating from Canada and the UK, this article will show that, despite a substantial research effort and the production of an associated literature, suicide rates continue to rise in the example countries. Even given the existence of numerous positivistically oriented 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 exists a substantial literature on the issue of suicide, there are many gaps in our knowledge and our understanding of the experiences, and the meanings attributed to these experiences that motivate people to attempt suicide is far from complete. Accordingly, the author argues that there is an urgent need to better understand the particular life experiences and the meanings that individuals attach to suicidal experiences. In order to design interventions to help reduce the suicide rate, whether these are interventions at the pre-primary, primary or secondary level of care, it is argued that it is necessary to gain a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of this highly complex behaviour. Consequently, this article makes the case for the use of hermeneutic, phenomenological investigations, in order to further elucidate the lived experiences of people who have attempted suicide.
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 | 0.164 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.124 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.042 | 0.075 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".