MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resilience and suicidality among homeless youth

2010· article· en· W2127643693 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristin Cleverley, Sean A. Kidd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsPsychologySuicidal ideationPsychological resilienceMental healthDistressDemographicsClinical psychologySuicide preventionPsychiatryPoison controlIntervention (counseling)Social psychologyMedicineDemographyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Homeless and street-involved youth are considered an extremely high risk group, with many studies highlighting trajectories characterized by abusive, neglectful, and unstable family histories, victimization and criminal involvement while on the streets, high rates of physical and mental illness, and extremely high rates of mortality. While there exists a substantial body of knowledge regarding risk, in recent years attention has been increasingly shifting to the examination of resilience, intervention, and service delivery models for these young people. The present study describes the findings from a quantitative examination of personal and street-related demographics, psychological distress, self-esteem, resilience, and suicidality among 47 homeless and street-involved youth. Key findings indicate that the apparent erosion of mental health variables, including resilience, occurs as a function of how long the youths have been without stable housing. Finally, those youths' perceived resilience was associated with less suicidal ideation whereas higher psychological distress was associated with higher suicidal ideation, even when accounting for resiliency.

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)0.002
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations143
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207