MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109180502 · doi:10.1192/pb.28.4.137

Establishing a clinical database for hospital attendances because of self-harm

2004· article· en· W2109180502 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Judith Horrocks, Allan House, David Owens

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Bulletin · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineMedical emergencyPsychologyPsychiatrySocial psychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-harm is a major risk factor for suicide (Gunnell & Frankel, 1994) with around a quarter of suicides preceded by non-fatal self-harm in the previous year (Owens & House, 1994). Strategies for suicide prevention should include accurate monitoring of health service contacts due to self-harm. Unfortunately, the published literature points to few practical steps for ensuring this accuracy. We offer an account of running a database, to assist others who might be setting out on this monitoring process.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0200.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.011

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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