MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072208759 · doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4131

Family Relationships and Latina Teen Suicide Attempts: Reciprocity, Asymmetry, and Detachment

2011· article· en· W2072208759 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren E. Gulbas, Luis H. Zayas, Allyson P. Nolle, Carolina Hausmann‐Stabile, Jill Kuhlberg, Ana A. Baumann, Juan B. Peña

Bibliographic record

VenueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social Services · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsGeorge Brown College
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsReciprocity (cultural anthropology)DaughterReciprocalPsychologySocial psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePolitical scienceMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using qualitative data collected from adolescent Latinas and their parents, this article describes ways in which family relationships are organized within low-income Latino families (n = 24) with and without a daughter who attempted suicide. Based on a family-level analysis approach, we present a framework that categorizes relationships as reciprocal, asymmetrical, or detached. Clear differences are identified: Families of non-attempters primarily cluster in reciprocal families, whereas families with an adolescent suicide attempter exhibit characteristics of asymmetrical or detached families. Our results highlight the need for detailed clinical attention to family communication patterns, especially in Latino families. Clinicians may reduce the likelihood of an attempt or repeated attempts by raising mutual, reciprocal exchanges of words and support between parents and daughter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamilies in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social ServicesSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207