Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forskningslitteraturen dokumenterer at noen overdosedødsfall kan være selvmord. Denne studien baserer seg på data fra en gjennomgang av alle registrerte overdosedødsfall i Oslo i perioden 2006–2008. Med utgangspunkt i et case bestående av to av disse dødsfallene som ble vurdert å være selvmord enten på bakgrunn av spesifikke uttalelser eller avskjedsbrev, beskriver den hvordan pårørende og fagfolk erfarte de avdødes livsomstendigheter siste året de levde. Fenomenet overdoser som selvmord belyses også med erfaringer fra andre deltakere i Oslo-gjennomgangen. Gjennom en kvalitativ analyse fremkom fem forhold av betydning for overdoser som selvmord. Forholdene drøftes i lys av to av prinsippene fra Ottawa-erklæringen om å fremme helse. Konklusjonen antyder viktigheten av å innta en deltakerposisjon i forhold til personenes livsomstendigheter og betydningen av å skape håp. In the research literature there is documentation that some overdose deaths may be suicide. This study is based on data from a review of all fatal overdoses in Oslo during the period 2006-2008. Based on a case comprising two of these deaths that were assumed to be suicide, either based on specific statements or suicide notes, we describe how relatives and professionals experienced the deceased persons' life situation during the last year they lived. The phenomenon of overdose as suicide is also illustrated using the experiences of other participants in the Oslo study group. Using qualitative analysis, we found five important elements for overdose as suicide. These are discussed in the light of two of the principles for health promotion in the Ottawa declaration. We suggest the importance of taking on a participant-position in relation to the persons' life contexts and the meaning of creating hope.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".