MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187991249 · doi:10.1080/07448481.2021.1961782

Educational stakeholders’ attitudes and knowledge about nonsuicidal self-injury among university students: A cross-national study

2021· article· en· W3187991249 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chloe A. Hamza, Kealagh Robinson, Penelope Hasking, Nancy L. Heath, Stephen P. Lewis, Elizabeth E. Lloyd‐Richardson, Janis Whitlock, Marc Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American College Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthStigma (botany)PsychologySuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlInjury preventionMedical educationMental illnessMedicinePsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is a commonly occurring, yet historically poorly understood, mental health concern among post-secondary students. The present study sought to identify the current knowledge needs of university stakeholders to inform training efforts around effective NSSI response and student support on university campuses. Participants were 1,762 university students, staff, and student-staff (77% female) from seven universities in Canada, the USA, New Zealand, and Australia. Participants completed an online survey about their attitudes and knowledge of both general mental health and NSSI. University stakeholders reported significantly greater stigma toward NSSI than mental illness in general. Student-staff reported greater perceived knowledge and comfort, and demonstrated greater knowledge of NSSI, than students and staff. Findings underscore the need for additional training and resources to reduce stigma and increase knowledge about NSSI on university campuses internationally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American College HealthSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207