Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a significant concern amongst caregivers, mental health advocates, and survivors of suicide attempts surrounding use of the phrase committed suicide. Sommer-Rotenberg (1998) identified that the phrase has a connotation of criminality, dishonor, and immorality, and that its ongoing use contributes to stigma surrounding suicide. Similar arguments have been made by others (see, e.g., Suicide.org; Suicideinfo.ca). In the current study, participants read two scenarios (in counterbalanced order), one depicting a suicide in which bereaved family members verbalize that they view the suicide as sinful and morally condemnable, and one depicting a suicide without this additional information. Analyses tested whether a suicide depicted as sinful is more frequently paired with statements employing the phrase committed suicide (relative to statements containing the phrase died by suicide) than the control scenario. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that perceived sinfulness led to participants choosing the phrase committed suicide more than the phrase died by suicide. This study provides an empirical basis for a causal link between moral condemnation and the perceived appropriateness of the phrase committed suicide. Faculty Mentor: Andrew Howell Department: Psychology
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".