MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318381360 · doi:10.1111/cpsp.12136

What Distinguishes Suicide Attempters From Suicide Ideators? A Meta-Analysis of Potential Factors

2016· article· en· W2318381360 on OpenAlex

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

VenueClinical Psychology Science and Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical psychologyDepression (economics)PsychologyAnxietySuicide attemptSuicide preventionSubstance abuseAlcohol abusePoison controlMarital statusPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergencyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most suicide ideators do not attempt suicide. Thus, it is useful to understand what differentiates attempters from ideators. We meta-analyzed 27 studies comparing sociodemographic and clinical variables between attempters and ideators. When comparing ideators to nonsuicidal individuals, there were several large effects. For example, depression and PTSD were markedly elevated among ideators (d = .85–.90). In contrast, when comparing attempters to ideators, all 12 variables had negligible to moderate effects. Specifically, depression, alcohol use disorders, hopelessness, gender, race, marital status, and education all were similar in attempters and ideators (d = −.05 to .31). Anxiety disorders, PTSD, drug use disorders, and sexual abuse history were moderately elevated in attempters compared to ideators (d = .48–.52). Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.373
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.159 · 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