MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215930435 · doi:10.1177/13634593211060767

The bounds of suicide talk: Implications for qualitative suicide research

2021· article· en· W3215930435 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Patti Ranahan, Veronica Keefe

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Vulnerability (computing)Construct (python library)Suicide preventionQualitative researchEthnographyWork (physics)Poison controlPublic relationsSociologyPsychologyCriminologyComputer securityMedicinePolitical scienceMedical emergencyEngineeringComputer scienceSocial scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the implementation of a provincial suicide prevention gatekeeper training initiative in western Canada between 2015 and 2018, we conducted a focused ethnography designed to capture the post-initiative context within one small community. Analyses of our field observations and interviews with community members suggest suicide prevention work is represented in multiple informal or coordinated actions to generate innovative pathways to provoke open conversations about suicide. Simultaneously, suicide talk is constrained and managed to limit vulnerability and exposure and adhere to community privacy norms. Further, parameters around suicide talk may be employed in efforts to construct the community and mental health care in livable ways. As the research process paralleled existing representations of suicide prevention work in the community, this paper explores our entanglement in the bounds of suicide talk during phases of recruitment, data collection and knowledge translation activities.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0220.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.307
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and MedicineSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207