MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118936687 · doi:10.1521/suli.2007.37.3.308

Which Helper Behaviors and Intervention Styles are Related to Better Short‐Term Outcomes in Telephone Crisis Intervention? Results from a Silent Monitoring Study of Calls to the U.S. 1–800‐SUICIDE Network

2007· article· en· W2118936687 on OpenAlexaff
Brian L. Mishara, Fran ̧ois Chagnon, Marc Daigle, Bogdan Balan, Sylvaine Raymond, Isabelle Marcoux, Cécile Bardon, Julie K. Campbell, Alan L. Berman

Bibliographic record

VenueSuicide and Life-Threatening Behavior · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningIntervention (counseling)PsychologyTerm (time)EmpathyCrisis interventionApplied psychologyTelephone callClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 2,611 calls to 14 helplines were monitored to observe helper behaviors and caller characteristics and changes during the calls. The relationship between intervention characteristics and call outcomes are reported for 1,431 crisis calls. Empathy and respect, as well as factor-analytically derived scales of supportive approach and good contact and collaborative problem solving were significantly related to positive outcomes, but not active listening. We recommend recruitment of helpers with these characteristics, development of standardized training in those methods that are empirically shown to be effective, and the need for research relating short-term outcomes to long-term effects.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations148
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuicide and Life-Threatening BehaviorSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207