Examining Adherence to Suicide Reporting Guidelines in Initial Reports on High-Profile Celebrity Suicides
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: Research has found varying adherence by media professionals to recommendations for reporting on suicide. Aims: We compared adherence to recommendations for what to do and what not to do when reporting on suicide in initial reports of high-profile celebrity suicides in major media outlets. Method: A total of 100 articles published in news outlets during 2004–2018 and reporting on celebrity suicides were examined for adherence to reporting guidelines using content analysis. Results: Articles frequently adhered to guidelines for what not to do when reporting on suicide (83%), but rarely adhered to guidelines for what to do (26%). Limitations: This study was a single cross-sectional analysis and may not generalize to different outlets, guidelines, or countries. Conclusion: While news articles frequently do not include harmful information, they also do not include potentially protective content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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