MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2987596346 · doi:10.3390/ijerph16224389

Place, the Built Environment, and Means Restriction in Suicide Prevention

2019· article· en· W2987596346 on OpenAlexaff
Nathaniel J. Pollock

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmSuicide preventionPsychological interventionPoison controlIntervention (counseling)Injury preventionLegislationHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthPublic healthMedicineMedical emergencyPsychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryNursingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Restricting access to lethal means is a key public health intervention for preventing suicide. Means restriction research has often focused on suicide methods that are modifiable through legislation or policy interventions. However, some of the most common methods such as hanging may not be sensitive to regulation. The aims of this paper are to examine built environment and place-based approaches to means restriction in suicide prevention, and further consider the connections between place, the environment, and suicide methods. To increase knowledge about specific methods and mechanisms of injury in suicide deaths, higher resolution data for surveillance and epidemiology is required. Data that can be used to better discern patterns about specific locations and materials used in suicide and self-harm will support efforts to uncover new directions for prevention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→