Portrayal of youth suicide in canadian news.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Responsible media reporting of youth suicide may reduce the risk of contagion and increase help-seeking behaviour. Accordingly, we conducted a content analysis of Canadian youth suicide newspaper articles to assess quality and summarize content (themes, age groups, populations and use of scientific evidence). METHOD: The Canadian Periodical Index Quarterly (CPI.Q) was searched (2008-2012) for full-text Canadian newspaper articles using the keywords "youth" and "suicide." The top five most relevant articles as judged by CPI.Q were selected sequentially for each year (n=25). Quality was assessed using World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for responsible media reporting. Content analysis was completed in duplicate by two reviewers. RESULTS: All articles addressed youth suicide generally rather than reporting exclusively on a specific death by suicide. Alignment of articles with individual WHO guideline items ranged from 16 to 60%. The most common content theme was prevention (80%). No article was judged to glamorize suicide. Help seeking was addressed in 52% of articles, but only 20% provided information on where to obtain help. Statistics were referenced more frequently than scientific research (76% vs. 28%). CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that Canadian media presents youth suicide as an issue for which hope and help exist. While the majority of reports aim to educate the public about suicide, increased use of scientific evidence about risk factors and prevention is recommended to facilitate the translation of rigorous scientific knowledge into improved mental health and reduced suicide risk among Canadian youth.
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".