Evaluarea şi intervenţia în criză pentru un individ suicidar adult (continuare)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper was written from the point of view of a real crisis worker belonging to a Crisis Intervention Program in Canada. My main goal was to transfer these specific and sensitive knowledge and protocols about assessment and intervention of a suicidal individual to the hypothetic crisis services from Romania. The paper reproduced the real steps of an algorithm followed by a crisis worker having to respond to a suicidal crisis: (i) contact, (ii) communication, (iii) assessment protocol and instruments, (iv) risk and protective factors, (v) general and particular issues of the interviewing with a suicidal individual, and (vi) intervention methods. The suicidal subject is taken specifically into account in various situations: unsuccessful suicidal attempt, presence of a suicidal ideation, formulation of a suicidal plan, and possession of the resources to fulfill a suicidal plan. Intervention protocol for a suicidal individual is portrayed as a 25-step logical program ended up with the formulation of a suicidal safety plan, follow-up contacts, referral to other services, and documentation. All these crisis worker’s activities are highly standardized and structured so that he/she will stand up accountable for the job done. Drawing up this paper, the author has creatively incorporated his personal experience working in the crisis programs and the review of a large body of international references.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".