MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132107678 · doi:10.1177/1558689811423914

Suicide Studies and the Need for Mixed Methods Research

2011· article· en· W2132107678 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mixed Methods Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidologyMultidisciplinary approachMultimethodologyPsychologySuicide preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlSuicide methodsManagement scienceSociologyMedicineSocial scienceEngineeringSuicide ratesMedical emergencyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research method in suicide studies has been primarily quantitative, and suicide remains without an adequate or accepted general theory that incorporates multiple disciplines and perspectives. Dependence on quantitative research limits an understanding of the complexity of suicide. This article argues for the use of mixed methods for suicide research. Three key topics in suicide research are highlighted: risk factors for suicide, efficacy of suicide prevention, and cultural factors in suicide and suicide prevention. Mixed methods will expand knowledge of suicide by integrating theory-based variables and subjectivity as objects of inquiry. Mixed methods will allow for a broadening of research questions, more substantive understanding, and are necessary for a multidimensional and multidisciplinary suicidology.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.189
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1890.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.618
GPT teacher head0.649
Teacher spread0.031 · 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