MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W319027541

Determinants of Suicidal Ideation and Behavior, Economic Theories of Suicidal Behavior and the Economics of Prevention

2012· article· en· W319027541 on OpenAlexaff
Nazmi Sari, Alper Altinanahtar

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationProductivitySuicide preventionEconomic costValue (mathematics)PsychiatrySuicidal behaviorMental healthPsychologySuicide ratesPoison controlMedicineCriminologyMedical emergencyEconomic growthEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide has long history dating back to the earliest historical records of humankind. Currently, the number of people committing suicide around the world is not negligible. In 2010, almost one million people committed suicide, which corresponds to a mortality rate of 16 per 100,000 people. There are also significant numbers of suicide attempts for every completed suicide especially for young people. The economics literature documents a substantial cost of suicide. These cost includes ambulance services, hospitalization, autopsy services and other healthcare and mental health services for the individual who dies as well as his family members, friends and significant others. Additional economic costs include the value of life lost, and productivity loss. Economists have started to study suicide, including its economic determinants and the economic evaluation of suicide prevention programs. In this chapter, we provide a brief review of these two areas. The lessons learned directions for further research are highlighted in the chapter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→