MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198162832 · doi:10.17061/phrp3132111

Innovations in suicide assessment and prevention during pandemics

2021· review· en· W3198162832 on OpenAlexafffund
Connor T. A. Brenna, Paul S. Links, Maxwell Tran, Mark Sinyor, Marnin J. Heisel, Simon Hatcher

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Research & Practice · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaWestern UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreSunnybrook HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPandemicLonelinessPublic healthSuicide preventionSocial isolationMental healthPoison controlMedicineOccupational safety and healthAnxietyInjury preventionPopulationHuman factors and ergonomicsEnvironmental healthPsychologyPsychiatryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging evidence, based on the synthesis of reports from past infectious disease-related public health emergencies, supports an association between previous pandemics and a heightened risk of suicide or suicide-related behaviours and outcomes. Anxiety associated with pandemic media reporting appears to be one critical contributing factor. Social isolation, loneliness, and the disconnect that can result from public health strategies during global pandemics also appear to increase suicide risk in vulnerable individuals. Innovative suicide risk assessment and prevention strategies are needed to recognise and adapt to the negative impacts of pandemics on population mental health.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.763
GPT teacher head0.719
Teacher spread0.043 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health Research & PracticeSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207