Neighborhood poverty and suicidal thoughts and attempts in late adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suicide tends to concentrate in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and neighborhood disadvantage is associated with many important risk factors for youth suicide. However, no study has directly investigated the link between neighborhood poverty and youth suicidal behaviors, while controlling for pre-existing vulnerabilities. The objective of this study was to determine whether living in a poor neighborhood is associated with suicidal thoughts and attempts in late adolescence over and above background vulnerabilities, and whether this association can be explained by late-adolescence psychosocial risks: depression, social support, negative life events (NLEs), delinquent activities, substance abuse and exposure to suicide. The potential moderating role of neighborhood poverty was also examined. METHOD: A subset of 2776 participants was selected from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY). Late-adolescence suicidal behaviors and risk factors were self-reported. The 2001 Canadian Census was used to characterize neighborhoods during early and middle adolescence. Late-childhood family and individual controls were assessed through parent-report. RESULTS: At the bivariate level, the odds of reporting suicidal thoughts were about twice as high in poor than non-poor neighborhoods, and the odds of attempting suicide were about four times higher. After controlling for background vulnerabilities, neighborhood poverty remained significantly associated with both suicidal thoughts and attempts. However, these associations were not explained by late-adolescence psychosocial risks. Rather, youth living in poor neighborhoods may be at greater risk through the amplification of other risk factors in disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Potential explanations for the increased vulnerability of youth living in poor neighborhoods are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".