MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130938051

School Counsellors' Understanding of Non-Suicidal Self-Injury: Experiences and International Variability.

2011· article· en· W2130938051 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jamie M. Duggan, Nancy L. Heath, Jessica R. Toste, Shana Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PreparednessPsychologySuicide preventionClinical psychologyScope (computer science)MedicinePoison controlMedical educationPsychiatryPolitical scienceEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a concern among professionals working with youth. The present study examined school counsellors’ experiences, training and school preparedness, perceived knowledge, beliefs, and intervention approaches related to NSSI. Participants were 470 school counsellors (417 female, 53 male) from across North America (156 Canada, 314 United States). Although NSSI is largely within counsellors’ scope of practice, as evidenced by the 92% who reported working with a student who engaged in NSSI at some point during their career, counsellors reported only moderate levels of NSSI knowledge, a lack of formal training, and an absence of school policies concerning NSSI management. American counsellors endorsed more media-based representations about NSSI than their Canadian counterparts. Discussion focuses on the need for training among school counsellors and the improvement of service delivery across North America for youth who engage in NSSI.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207