MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785959012 · doi:10.1177/0093854818754609

Attempted Suicide: A Multilevel Examination of Inmate Characteristics and Prison Context

2018· article· en· W2785959012 on OpenAlexaff
Bryce E. Stoliker

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminal Justice and Behavior · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrisonOddsContext (archaeology)Suicide preventionMental healthPoison controlPsychologyWitnessPsychiatryInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsMultilevel modelPopulationOccupational safety and healthClinical psychologyMedicineCriminologyMedical emergencyLogistic regressionEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Correctional institutions in the United States witness higher rates of suicide compared with the general population, as well as a higher number of attempted suicides compared with completed cases. Prison research focused little attention on investigating the combined effects of inmate characteristics and prison context on suicide, with studies using only one level of analysis (prison or prisoner) and neglecting the nested nature of inmates in prisons. To extend this literature, multilevel modeling techniques were employed to investigate individual- and prison-contextual predictive patterns of attempted suicide using a nationally representative sample of 18,185 inmates in 326 prisons across the United States. Results revealed that several individual-level factors predicted odds for attempted suicide, such as inmate characteristics/demographics, prison experiences, having a serious mental illness, and symptoms of mental health issues. Some prison-contextual variables, as well as cross-level interaction effects, also significantly predicted odds for attempted suicide. Policy and research implications 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.

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)0.000
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 score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations48
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminal Justice and BehaviorSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207