MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257816323

Suicide in veterinary medicine: let's talk about it.

2015· article· en· W2257816323 on OpenAlex
Debbie L Stoewen

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

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Works and Government Services Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTragedy (event)FeelingPopulationSuicide preventionMedicineSadnessPsychologyPsychiatryPoison controlMedical emergencySocial psychologyAngerEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide and non-fatal suicidal behavior are major public health problems across the world: approximately 1 million people worldwide die by suicide each year. In fact, the number of lives lost through suicide exceeds the number of deaths due to homicide and war combined. Beyond the tragedy of life lost, there is the devastating human cost to family, friends, and colleagues, a cost carried forward with lasting impacts and lifelong repercussions. Suicide is injurious, both deeply and widely. Several studies have identified a link between suicide and occupation (1), including the healthcare professions and our own profession. The rate of suicide in the veterinary profession has been pegged as close to twice that of the dental profession, more than twice that of the medical profession (2), and 4 times the rate in the general population (3). No matter where we live, what we do, and what our state of the world, we share the common experiences of joy and sadness, face strife and hardship, and struggle to meet life’s challenges. Sometimes “the stuff of life” can pile up, leaving us overwhelmed, depressed, and feeling alone. It can even push us over the edge to thoughts of suicide. The 2012 CVMA National Survey Results on the Wellness of Veterinarians (n = 769) found that 19% of respondents had seriously thought about suicide and 9% previously attempted suicide (4). Of those who had seriously thought about it (n = 135), 49% felt they were still at risk to repeat. The risk is real. The numbers are compelling. As Halliwell and Hoskin (2) indicate, “We must develop a greater awareness within the veterinary profession of the issue of suicide, and of the predisposing signs and of the warning signs. There is ample evidence that bringing these issues out into the open, rather than bottling them up, is of great assistance in preventing suicides.” Although the stigma associated with suicide has been an important barrier to discussing the issue (5), we need to open the dialogue in the hope that with increased awareness we can reduce the numbers — and stem the tragedy. It’s time we talk about it.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.552
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.037 · 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