Écologie de la famille, réseau social et comportements suicidaires en milieu scolaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article sums up the outcome of a research project conducted in Montreal schools in 1987 and 1988, and focusing on how family ecology and social networks relate to strong suicidal tendencies among teenagers. Two groups were involved in the study: one with 78 suicidal persons, the other with 72 non-suicidal persons. Teenagers in each group were interviewed separately. All subjects reported high lack of attention from at least one of the two parents. Results also show that parents of suicidal teens experience permanent break-ups less frequently in comparison to the other group. However, families of suicidal teens tend to experience deeper changes in the structure of the family unit following an initial separation. With respect to moving, there are no significant differences, whether in the number of moves or the important people, have access to as many different kinds of support and report the same number of conflicts. In all these comparisons, however, suicidal teenagers do name a proportionately higher number of adults. This leads the authors to hypothesize that a higher rate of parental separation among non-suicidal teens could represent a protective factor rather than a vulnerability factor, as is usually suggested. In terms of social networks, the fact that suicidal teens seek out adults to a greater degree could impede on their socializing with peers and, therefore, on their social integration.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".