Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any sociological understanding of suicide is firmly rooted in the social objectivity of the phenomenon itself. Standing in sharp contrast with the dominant medical \nparadigm, what sociology seeks is the historical personality of suicide as it mirrors our lived reality. The first task is to accurately describe the parameters of \nthe phenomenon in order to highlight what form it actually takes in society. Having made explicit and justified this approach, this thesis reviews, in a second step, the academic discussion on age, gender and suicide, since these practical features are central in qualifying contemporary suicide. Finally, through a careful examination of gender and age specific suicide rates and age specific suicide \nsex ratios, the defining characteristics of our shared contemporary suicide regime are underscored. First, the data presented clearly supports the increasing sex differential in completed suicides in Canada. Second, the data presented underscores the changes which characterize the age distribution of suicide in Canada since the 1950’s which simultaneously involves an increase of suicide \nrates in the younger age categories and a decrease of suicide rates in the later age categories. Thirdly, the data presented highlights the synchronicity of the \nspread of the phenomenon of youth suicide across the Canadian provinces. Finally, the data presented illuminates a recognizable cohort effect within the wider phenomenon of the coming into being of youth suicide. This thesis does not set out to interpret the transformations which characterize our contemporary suicide regime, but instead seeks to underscore the precise modalities of these \nchanges.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".