MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081357245 · doi:10.1111/sltb.12077

Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Adolescents Aged 12–16 Years: A 17‐Year Follow‐Up

2014· article· en· W2081357245 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benjamin I. Joffe, Ryan J. Van Lieshout, Laura Duncan, Michael H. Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenueSuicide and Life-Threatening Behavior · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationRespondentMental healthClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PsychiatryPsychologySuicidal behaviorSuicide preventionPoison controlIdeationMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of suicidal ideation/behavior in 1983 or 1987 and its association with future mental health in 2001 were evaluated in a provincially representative sample of Canadian adolescents (n = 1,248) aged 12 to 16 years. Approximately 13.3% (95% CI = 11.5-15.3) of adolescents self-reported suicidal ideation/behavior. Adolescent agreement with parent (κ = .07) and teacher (κ = .05) reports at baseline was low because adults identified so few subjects. In adulthood, the associations between adolescent self-reports of suicidal behavior/ideation and major depression and other mental health indicators were explained by respondent sex and adolescent emotional problems reported in 1983/1987. Adolescents with suicidal behavior/ideation often are not recognized by their parents and teachers and may be at risk for persistent psychiatric problems attributable to coexisting mental health problems early-on.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuicide and Life-Threatening BehaviorSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207