MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206392224 · doi:10.54127/arab2417

What Will it Take for Them to Hear Us?: Reacting and Not Reacting to Inuit Youth Suicide.

2019· article· en· W4206392224 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Snowball

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Concurrent Disorders · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide among Inuit youth is a preventable public health crisis, but the question is: a crisis for whom? For nonIndigenous people in Canada, it may be known that suicide is a significant issue in Inuit communities. Regardless, what is the impact of reading that, in some areas, the rates for suicide are 25 times higher than the Canadian average, and in one small village of 1,800 up to 11 young Inuit died by suicide in one year? This is a decades-old issue, where one Inuk youth finally asked: What will it take for them to hear us? This article gets to the root of why we may not be listening, names what barriers there are to change, and elevates the voices of Inuit youth who are leading the way. It is through them that Inuit youth suicide can become a more meaningful, relevant and pressing concern for us all.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Concurrent DisordersSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207