MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084155950 · doi:10.1037/tra0000040

Predictors of suicidal ideation in treatment-seeking survivors of torture.

2015· article· en· W2084155950 on OpenAlexaff
Emilie Lerner, George A. Bonanno, Eva Keatley, Amy Joscelyne, Allen S. Keller

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortureSuicidal ideationClinical psychologyPsychiatryLogistic regressionSuicide preventionPoison controlPsychologyRefugeeInjury preventionMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we examined sociodemographic, persecutor identity, torture, and postmigration variables associated with suicidal ideation in a clinical sample of 267 immigrant survivors of torture who have resettled in New York City. The purpose of this study was to identify variables associated with increased risk for suicidal ideation in survivors of torture before they receive legal, psychological, or medical services for torture-related needs. Results from a binary logistic regression model identified a combination of 3 variables associated with current suicidal ideation at intake into the program. Being female, having not submitted an application for asylum, and a history of rape or sexual assault were significantly associated with suicidal ideation at intake, when also controlling for several other important variables. The final model explained 21.4% of variation in reported suicidal ideation at intake. The discussion will focus on the importance of conducting a thorough assessment of suicidal ideation in refugees and survivors of torture.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and PolicySame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207