MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094825871 · doi:10.1300/j015v29n01_08

Certainty, Revision, and Ambivalence: A Qualitative Investigation into Women's Journeys to Stop Self-Injuring

2006· article· en· W2094825871 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Naomi Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen & Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbivalenceCertaintyPsychologyPsychological interventionSocial psychologyQualitative researchGrounded theorySelfPoeticsEpistemologySociologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Based on in-depth interviews, this study utilizes grounded theory, interpretive poetics, and voice-centered analytic methods to investigate how six college women stop self-injuring. Findings illuminate that this process involves multiple factors beyond whether or not a woman desires to stop. These include: subjective meanings of the behavior, a decrease in psychological catalysts, self-initiative, life engagements, relational ties, professional treatment, disclosure experiences, motivators, and momentum. Treatment implications suggest that a woman's attitude toward stopping may point toward particular interventions.

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 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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations54
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen & TherapySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207