MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257816323

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

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

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.018
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0210.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207