Deficits in psychological resilience and problem-solving ability in adolescents with suicidal ideation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore differences between psychological resilience and problem-solving ability in grade one junior middle school adolescents with and without suicidal ideation, focusing on the relationship between these factors and suicidal ideation. METHODS: Ninety-nine adolescents (aged 10 to 14) were divided into Suicidal Ideation (SI, n = 49) and Non-Suicidal Ideation (NSI, n = 50) grouped by the Self-rating Idea of Suicide Scale (SIOSS). The Psychological Resilience Scale (PRS) and Tower of Hanoi task (TOH) were applied to assess psychological resilience and problem-solving ability, respectively. RESULTS: The SI group scored significantly lower than the NSI group on PRS (p < 0.001) and performed more poorly on TOH than the NSI group, with more mistakes in the number of errors index (p < 0.001) and requiring a longer time in the task completion time index (p < 0.05). Among all the participants in this study, a significant negative correlation was observed between PRS and SIOSS (r = - 0.413, p < 0.01). The sub-dimensions of PRS including emotional control, family support, and interpersonal assistance were significantly negatively correlated with the SIOSS total score (r = - 0.361, - 0.360, - 0.382; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study profiled the characteristics and differences in psychological resilience and problem-solving ability between adolescents with and without suicidal ideation. The data suggested adolescents with SI might have deficits in psychological resilience and problem-solving ability, which may serve as potential targets for suicide intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".