MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468925765 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.33.2.297

Indian Suicide and Marriage: A Research Note

2002· article· en· W2468925765 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Mayer, Tahereh Ziaian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminologySociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the impact of gender and marital status on suicide rates in India. It was hypothesized on the basis of established findings elsewhere that suicide rates for those who are married would be lower than for all other marital categories. It was also predicted that with two significant exceptions for all marital categories, male suicide rates would be higher than female rates. The predicted exceptions were for suicides by widows and widowers and for those who were divorced. Because of the traditional stigmatization of widows, it was hypothesized that their suicide rates would be higher than those of widowers. It was also predicted that the social disapproval of divorce in Indian society would result in higher suicide rates for divorced women than for men. Data are official suicide statistics provided by India's National Crime Records Bureau. The results of the study do not confirm the conventional patterns of variations in suicide according to marital status. In accordance with the traditional hypothesis first enunciated by E. Durkheim, married persons are less prone than the unmarried to commit suicide. Sociological studies over the last eighty years have consistently supported Durkheim's theory. The present data reveal that while marriage provides better protection against suicide for Indian women it does not do so for Indian men.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.390
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207