Completed suicides among the Inuit of northern Quebec, 1982-1996: a case-control study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rate of completed suicide among Inuit in Canada has been alarmingly high in recent years, and the suicide rate among Inuit in northern Quebec has increased since 1982. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of Inuit people who died by suicide in Nunavik between 1982 and 1996, and to identify the antecedents and correlates of completed suicide. METHODS: We carried out a case-control study of 71 people who died by suicide between 1982 and 1996 and 71 population-based living control subjects matched for sex, community of residence and age within 1 year. Comprehensive medical charts were reviewed for data on sociodemographic characteristics, medical and psychiatric history, childhood separations and family history, and use of health care services. RESULTS: Most of the case subjects were single males aged 15 to 24 years. The two principal means of suicide were hanging (in 39 cases [54.9%]) and gunshot (in 21 cases [29.6%]). About 33% had been in contact with medical personnel in the month before their death. The case subjects were significantly more likely than the control subjects to have received a lifetime psychiatric diagnosis (one or more of depression, personality disorder or conduct disorder) (odds ratio [OR] 4.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-15.2]) and to have had a history of psychiatric symptoms, disorder (including solvent sniffing) or treatment (OR 3.5 [95% CI 1.4-8.7]). The case subjects had experienced more severe types of nonpsychiatric illnesses and injuries than the control subjects (p = 0.04). The case subjects had more lifetime contacts with health care services than the control subjects (p = 0.01) and were more likely than the control subjects to have had contact with health care services in the year before death of the case subject (p = 0.03), even when psychiatric diagnoses were controlled for in conditional regression analysis (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.01-1.04] and 5.0 [95% CI 1.07-23.7] respectively). INTERPRETATION: Since case subjects had frequent contact with health care services, frontline medical personnel may be in a position to identify people at risk for suicide.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".