MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262167590 · doi:10.1111/sltb.12230

Factors Associated with Achieving Complete Mental Health among Individuals with Lifetime Suicidal Ideation

2016· article· en· W2262167590 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Philip Baiden, Esme Fuller‐Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueSuicide and Life-Threatening Behavior · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSuicidal ideationMental healthPsychologyIdeationClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with complete mental health among Canadians who had ever seriously considered suicide. Data for this study were obtained from Statistics Canada's 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health (N = 2,844). The outcome variable examined in this study was complete mental health and was analyzed using binary logistic regression. Of the 2,844 respondents with lifetime suicidal ideation, 1,088 (38.2%) had complete mental health (i.e., had flourishing mental health, no mental illness, and no suicidal ideation in the past 12 months). Those who had a confidant were seven times more likely to have complete mental health. Other factors associated with achieving complete mental health among formerly suicidal respondents include being older, being a woman, having higher income, use of religious coping, and never previously having a mental illness. Considering the importance of these protective factors in formulating public health policies will allow for a more wide-reaching approach to suicide prevention.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSuicide and Life-Threatening BehaviorSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207