MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755457123 · doi:10.1177/2397200917729529

Changing demographic characteristics and motives for suicide in rural China, 1980–2009

2017· article· en· W2755457123 on OpenAlexaff
Qiang Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Sociological Dialogue · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaLivelihoodSuicide preventionRural areaPublic healthPoison controlSocioeconomicsGeographyDemographyMedicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthSociologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the absence of a complete vital registration system in rural China, a unique large-scale ethnographic study was conducted to examine the incidents, trends, demographic characteristics and motives for suicide. This study was implemented in 55 villages from 23 prefectures in 11 provinces. Family members, relatives, friends, and neighbours of suicide victims, and key informants (cadres, village doctors, funeral/burial coordinators, and primary-school teachers) in a village were interviewed to obtain and verify the detailed life history of each suicide victim since the 1980s. Among 849 suicide victims we investigated, we found more female than male victims, which is reversed gender difference in traditional suicide literature. Both number of elderly suicide victims and suicide motives related to livelihood have dramatically increased in recent years. There were more middle-aged victims during the years 1995–9. This study suggests that suicide in rural China remains an urgent and enormous public health problem. Findings from this research cast doubt on the well-known sex disparity in China’s suicide victims and suggest a possible epidemic of elderly suicides in rural China. The shifting pattern of suicide motives tracks socio-cultural changes in rural China.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Sociological DialogueSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207