MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092182655 · doi:10.1027/0227-5910.27.4.172

Reaching Suicidal People with Media Campaigns

2006· article· en· W2092182655 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCrisis · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelephone surveySuicidal ideationMedia coveragePsychologySuicide preventionIdeationSample (material)Media useMedia campaignPoison controlSocial psychologyEnvironmental healthMedicineAdvertisingSociologyMedia studiesBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Five variables were investigated in the evaluation of Suicide Prevention Weeks (SPW) held in 1999, 2000, and 2001 in Québec, Canada: exposure to the campaign, previous suicide ideation, knowledge, attitudes, and intentions. After the year 2000 campaign, a telephone survey conducted on a representative sample of 1020 men revealed that only those actually exposed to the SPW had gained more knowledge of suicide facts and resources. However, the SPW did not influence attitudes or intentions to seek help. Results are not surprising, considering the low intensity of the campaign, especially in the media. Campaigns aimed at changing suicidal behaviors must be intensive.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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