MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306762217 · doi:10.1177/14777509221133054

Rational suicide and schizophrenia

2022· article· en· W4306762217 on OpenAlexaff
Naista Zhand, David Attwood

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Ethics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryPsychologyMental illnessRational planning modelRationalityMental healthPsychotherapistMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of rational suicide argues that suicide could be a rational choice, in certain circumstances. Such an argument faces criticism when there is an accompanying mental illness, as many view suicide as a symptom of mental illness rather than as a rational choice about one's life. More specifically, the rational suicide debate has mostly excluded individuals with schizophrenia, as it is widely seen as a disorder that impairs rational decision making. This paper aims to examine the concept of rational suicide in schizophrenia: Could it be possible that some acts of suicide are driven from a rational choice by patients suffering from schizophrenia? This paper does not include discussions related to physician-assisted dying in schizophrenia.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical EthicsSame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207