MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2192542993 · doi:10.1177/0886260515619172

Characteristics of Homicide-Suicide in Australia: A Comparison With Homicide-Only and Suicide-Only Cases

2015· article· en· W2192542993 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 Interpersonal Violence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAustralian Research CouncilMental Health Commission
KeywordsHomicidePoison controlSuicide preventionSituational ethicsCriminologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychologyInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthMedical emergencyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Homicide-suicide represents one of the rarest forms of lethal violence but often precipitates calls to revise social, health, and justice policies. However, there is little empirical information about this type of violence. The current study uses two unique data sets to examine a wide range of individual and situational characteristics of homicide-suicide, with particular emphasis on establishing whether and how homicide-suicide differs from homicide-only and suicide-only. Findings suggest homicide-suicide may have unique characteristics that set it apart from both homicide-only and suicide-only, as well as sharing certain other characteristics with those two types of events.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.291 · 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