MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Counseling for Suicide: Client Perspectives

2002· article· en· W2142205787 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 Counseling & Development · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCollege of New CaledoniaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationPsychologyQualitative researchClinical psychologyPsychotherapistSuicide preventionPoison controlMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to describe key therapeutic processes that facilitated overcoming suicidal ideation and behaviors in previously suicidal clients. A research method called “concept‐mapping” was used to develop an understanding of what was helpful in counseling. Thirty‐five (9 male, 26 female) previously suicidal clients (M = 38 years) performed card sorts on 65 statements derived from qualitative interviews of 9 (2 male, 7 female) previously suicidal individuals (M = 42 years). Participants identified 3 therapeutic processes that contributed to overcoming their suicidal thoughts and behaviors: (a) validating relationships, (b) working with emotions, and (c) developing a new identity.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · 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