Inflexible Interpretations of Ambiguous Social Situations: A Novel Predictor of Suicidal Ideation and the Beliefs That Inspire It
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
Suicidal ideation has been linked to a bias toward interpreting ambiguous information in consistently less positive or more negative manners ( positive/negative interpretation bias), implying that information-processing biases might distort beliefs thought to inspire suicidal ideation (e.g., those regarding burdensomeness). Therefore, in the present study, we examined whether suicidal ideation and beliefs highlighted in theories of suicide are related to positive/negative interpretation bias and/or a bias against revising negative interpretations in response to evidence against them ( negative interpretation inflexibility). Data were collected in three waves, each 1 week apart. Network analyses and structural equation models provided evidence that negative interpretation bias (cross-sectionally) and negative interpretation inflexibility (cross-sectionally and over time) were related to suicidal ideation and that the latter relationship was mediated by perceived burdensomeness. By identifying this mediation pathway in the present study, we provide a potential mechanism by which perceptions of burdensomeness, a key risk factor for suicidality, might arise and/or persist.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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