How men step back – and recover – from suicide attempts: A relational and gendered account
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men account for three-quarters of suicide deaths in the UK, yet we know little about how at-risk men construct their experiences of moving towards - and then subsequently stepping back from - suicide, nor the part played by relational factors therein. An inductive thematic analysis was used to examine narrative interviews with eleven UK men who self-reported serious thoughts, plans and up-to and including suicide attempts in progress, but who consciously decided against carrying out an attempt. Their accounts suggest a highly social process of movements towards and away from suicide (e.g. frustrated help-seeking). Stepping back from suicide represents not a discrete issue, but a linked process in suicidality and wider recovery. Here, the use of military metaphors in particular (e.g. waging war, fighting back) highlights the gendered nature of the issue. Additionally, our article illuminates a range of social relations and forces that circulate in and around suicidality, which itself is embedded in varying forms of relationality, normativity and gendered practices.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".