MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140697877 · doi:10.1521/suli.2008.38.2.195

Changes in Suicide Methods in Quebec between 1987 and 2000: The Possible Impact of Bill C‐17 Requiring Safe Storage of Firearms

2008· article· en· W2140697877 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean Caron, M. Julien, Jean Hua Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueSuicide and Life-Threatening Behavior · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronerSuicide methodsSuicide ratesSuicide preventionDemographyInjury preventionPoison controlMedicineOccupational safety and healthMedical examinerHuman factors and ergonomicsMedical emergencyPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents the changes in the overall and firearm suicide rates for Québec (Canada) before and after Bill C-17, which was implemented to secure safe storage of firearms. It covers 20,009 suicide cases reported to the coroner's office. Interrupted time series analysis is used to compare suicide rates in the two periods. Firearm suicide rates have dropped among males and females, but the downward trends were not significant when compared to those prior to the law. Hanging suicide rates have risen considerably among men and women, but those upward trends did not increase significantly when compared with those preceding the law. The decline in suicide rates involving firearms has not resulted in a parallel decline in overall suicide rates. The analyses suggest that Bill C-17 neither improved the downward trend in firearm suicide, which had already begun before the enactment of the law, nor reduced the upward trend of the overall suicide rate. Correlation analyses between firearm suicide, hanging suicide, and the overall suicide rate suggest that firearm suicide is replaced by hanging suicide among males.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuicide and Life-Threatening BehaviorSame topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207