Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Editor: Dr Angela Onkay Ho is to be commended for the thoughtful paper “Suicide: Rationality and Responsibility for Life.”1 The concept of rational suicide is worthy of academic discourse and is reflective of varying philosophical, cultural, and ideological perspectives; however, the context of such discussion requires highlighting. Suicide rates are of national concern. The Mental Health Commission of Canada has proposed a National Collaborative on Suicide Prevention to help address this significant problem. Rational suicide provides a public message that is vastly different from messages routinely delivered by psychiatrists. At the time of writing this letter, Dr Ho’s article had already been noted in one of Canada’s national newspapers.2 Media coverage of suicide has the potential to be misunderstood by people who are vulnerable and at risk and at increase risk of completion.3 There is concern that the public reporting of Dr Ho’s article in the national media may ultimately provide an overly simplified message in support of rational suicide to a large number of people who are depressed and distressed and ambivalently considering thoughts of ending their life. Our first duty is to instill hope and provide treatment to the vast majority of people with suicidal ideation who may be suffering from a potentially treatable mental illness. The article appropriately references guidelines from the Canadian Psychiatric Association on suicide prevention (the depression guidelines are now an historical reference document).4 I recommend that the discussions provoked by this article be accompanied by a clearly articulated statement from the Canadian Psychiatric Association reaffirming these guidelines. To remain silent runs the risk of encouraging public perception that organized psychiatry views the act of suicide as a rational and reasonable response to psychological distress.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.023 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".