Wiser Reasoning and Less Disgust Have the Potential to Better Achieve Suicide Prevention
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Background: High school and university teachers need to advise students against attempting suicide, the second leading cause of death among 15–29-year-olds. Aims: To investigate the role of reasoning and emotion in advising against suicide. Method: We conducted a study with 130 students at a university that specializes in teachers' education. Participants sat in front of a camera, videotaping their advising against suicide. Three raters scored their transcribed advice on "wise reasoning" (i.e., expert forms of reasoning: considering a variety of conditions, awareness of the limitation of one's knowledge, taking others' perspectives). Four registered psychologists experienced in suicide prevention techniques rated the transcripts on the potential for suicide prevention. Finally, using the software Facereader 7.1, we analyzed participants' micro-facial expressions during advice-giving. Results: Wiser reasoning and less disgust predicted higher potential for suicide prevention. Moreover, higher potential for suicide prevention was associated with more surprise. Limitations: The actual efficacy of suicide prevention was not assessed. Conclusion: Wise reasoning and counter-stereotypic ideas that trigger surprise probably contribute to the potential for suicide prevention. This advising paradigm may help train teachers in advising students against suicide, measuring wise reasoning, and monitoring a harmful emotional reaction, that is, disgust.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it