MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104440831 · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.56.12.1606

Brief Reports: Assessment of Police Calls for Suicidal Behavior in a Concentrated Urban Setting

2005· article· en· W2104440831 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Flora I. Matheson, Maria I. Creatore, Piotr Gozdyra, Rahim Moineddin, Sean B. Rourke, Richard H. Glazier

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Services · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsSuicidal behaviorSuicide preventionMental healthPreparednessDemographyPoison controlMedicineOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionSuicidal ideationPsychiatryPsychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of deinstitutionalization over the past half-century, police have become frontline mental health care workers. This study assessed five-year patterns of police calls for suicidal behavior in Toronto, Canada. Police responded to an average of 1,422 calls for suicidal behavior per year, 15 percent of which involved completed suicides (24 percent of male callers and 8 percent of female callers). Calls for suicidal behavior increased by 4 percent among males and 17 percent among females over the study period. The rate of completed suicides decreased by 22 percent among males and 31 percent among females. Compared with women, men were more likely to die from physical (as opposed to chemical) methods (22 percent and 43 percent, respectively). The study results highlight the importance of understanding changes in patterns and types of suicidal behavior to police training and preparedness.

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)0.005
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 score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations29
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric ServicesSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207