MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2585706123 · doi:10.1002/9781119162926.ch14

International solution focused applications to suicide prevention

2017· other· en· W2585706123 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicide ratesSuicide preventionDeveloped countryPolitical scienceEconomic growthMedicinePoison controlEnvironmental healthPopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter considers suicide rates in various countries of the world. In many cases, both male and female rates are provided. It is staggering to note that over a million people die by suicide every year. This equates to a suicide rate of 16/100,000 or one every 40 seconds. Many believe that under-reporting is widespread and therefore the number is much higher. Suicide prevention programmes and national strategies for chosen countries are presented. Much mention is made of WHO programmes and campaigns. Key countries where both national suicide prevention strategies and good solution focused practice is in place, are examined. These are Canada, Australia, Finland, Singapore, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, Poland, the Russian Federation, Philippines and the United States. Within these countries, religious and cultural considerations are outlined, too. Also within these countries, both the extent of solution focused training and solution focused suicide prevention is considered. At the end of the chapter, other countries are listed where there are encouraging signs of SF suicide prevention practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.026

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→