MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131864230 · doi:10.1521/suli.32.4.418.22341

The Association between Homelessness and Suicidal Ideation and Behaviors: Results of a Cross‐sectional Survey

2002· article· en· W2131864230 on OpenAlexaff
Rahel Eynan, John Langley, George Tolomiczenko, Anne E. Rhodes, Paul S. Links, Donald Wasylenki, Paula Goering

Bibliographic record

VenueSuicide and Life-Threatening Behavior · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSt Joseph's Health CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationPsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychologySuicide preventionCross-sectional studyMental healthPoison controlMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was carried out with three goals: (1) to determine the prevalence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among the homeless; (2) to determine what aspects of homelessness predict suicidality, and (3) to determine which aspects remain predictive after controlling for key covariates, such as mental illness. A sample of 330 homeless adults were interviewed. Sixty-one percent of the study sample reported suicidal ideation and 34% had attempted suicide. Fifty-six percent of the men and 78% of the women reported prior suicidal ideation, while 28 percent of the men and 57% of the women had attempted suicide. Childhood homelessness of at least 1 week without family members and periods of homelessness longer than 6 months were found to be associated with suicidal ideation. Psychiatric diagnoses were also associated with suicidality in this sample.

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)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations108
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuicide and Life-Threatening BehaviorSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207