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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research shows that there is a high prevalence of suicide among nurses. Despite this, it has been 15 years since the last literature review on the subject was published. Aim: The aim of this article is to review the knowledge currently available on the risk of suicide among nurses and on contributory risk factors. Method: A search was conducted in electronic databases using keywords related to prevalence and risk factors of suicide among nurses. The abstracts were analyzed by reviewers according to selection criteria. Selected articles were submitted to a full-text review and their key elements were summarized. Results: Only nine articles were eligible for inclusion in this review. The results of this literature review highlight both the troubling high prevalence of suicide among nurses as well as the persistent lack of studies that examine this issue. Conclusion: Considering that the effects of several factors related to nurses' work and work settings are associated with high stress, distress, or psychiatric problems, we highlight the relevance of investigating work-related factors associated with nurses' risk of suicide. Several avenues for future studies are discussed as well as possible research methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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 it