MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2237444002 · doi:10.1177/0030222815575899

Examining the Importance of Mental Pain and Physical Dissociation and the Fluid Nature of Suicidality in Young Suicide Attempters

2015· article· en· W2237444002 on OpenAlexaff
Shai Levinger, Ronald R. Holden, David H. Ben-Dor

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologyDissociation (chemistry)PsychiatryDistressSuicide preventionMental distressPoison controlMental healthMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the importance of distress (i.e., mental pain, tolerance of mental pain, and depression) and physical dissociation factors for a group of young suicide attempters. Analyses indicated that those with higher current suicidality also evidenced higher current levels of depression and mental pain, lower mental pain tolerance, and higher physical dissociation. However, no correlations between suicidality and distress or physical dissociation were found when the level of suicidality was based on the time of the suicide attempt. The results demonstrate the importance of mental pain and its tolerance as well as physical dissociation in assessing severity of suicidality. However, analyses suggest there might be a decline in suffering after a suicide attempt and highlight the importance of assessing current suicidality when evaluating relevant variables for suicide. Findings are interpreted with regard to theories relating to the fluctuating nature of suicidality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207