Changes in Suicide Reporting Quality and Deaths in Ontario Following Publication of National Media Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Background: Media guidelines can influence suicide-related reporting quality and may impact suicide rates. Aim: Our study aimed to investigate the quality of suicide-related reporting after the release of the 2009 Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) guidelines and their impact on suicides. Method: A random sample of suicide-related articles ( n = 988) were retrieved from 12 major Canadian print/online publications (2002–2015). Articles were coded for quality of content before and after guidelines release. Suicide mortality data were obtained from Ontario coroner records. Time series analyses were used to identify associations between guideline publication and subsequent suicides. Results: The CPA guidelines were associated with improvements in reporting quality with 10 putatively harmful elements being less frequent after their publication. These included less frequent front-page articles, monocausal (simplistic) explanations for suicide, and depictions of suicide methods. Two putatively protective factors, alternatives to suicide and messages of hope, were twice and four times as common, respectively, after the guidelines. The guidelines were not associated with a change in suicide counts. Limitations: This study could not prove exposure to suicide reporting. Conclusion: Publication of Canadian media guidelines was associated with significant, moderate-sized improvements in reporting quality but not with decreased suicides. The latter finding may reflect only modest dissemination and implementation of the guidelines.
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 | 0.005 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".