MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270870954 · doi:10.5539/res.v8n1p145

Deaths by Suicide in Ecuador: A Quantitative Data Analysis

2016· article· en· W2270870954 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Narcisa Marisol Sarmiento Sarmiento, Ana Maribel Paredes Proaño, Efstathios Stefos

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Health and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidenceDemographyMarital statusEthnic groupGeographyDescriptive statisticsSuicide methodsEnvironmental healthMedicineSocioeconomicsPoison controlSuicide preventionSuicide ratesSociologyStatisticsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study was to investigate the profile of Ecuadorians who died by suicide during 2011. The National Mortality Study of 2011 was used in order to investigate the variables: sex, age, marital status, area of residence, natural region, level of instruction, ethnic self-identification, pregnancy and types of suicide. A descriptive analysis, a multiple correspondence analysis and a hierarchical classification were realized. The analysis showed that the majority of the Ecuadorians who died by suicide were men, singles and married, they were living in urban areas, in the mountain range and coast region, they had attended Primary or Secondary education and died by hanging, strangulation and suffocation or by exposure to pesticides, other chemicals and noxious substances.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.341
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicIndigenous Health and EducationFrench-language works237,207