MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381597219 · doi:10.1080/22423982.2023.2226284

A systematic review on risk and protective factors for suicide and suicidal behaviour among Greenland Inuit

2023· review· en· W4381597219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ivalu Katajavaara Seidler, Nanna Lund Hansen, Arnârak Patricia Bloch, Christina Viskum Lytken Larsen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSyddansk Universitet
KeywordsPsycINFOSocioeconomic statusSuicide preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthProtective factorEnvironmental healthInjury preventionMedicineMental healthHuman factors and ergonomicsRisk factorPsychiatryPsychologyMEDLINEPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1970s, suicide has been a major public health issue in Greenland. The World Health Organization has emphasised the importance of the identification of both risk and protective factors in relation to suicide. The aim of this paper was to identify scientific literature on risk and protective factors for suicide and suicidal behaviour among Greenland Inuit. Searches in PubMed and PsycInfo resulted in 420 studies that were screened by three of the authors. After screening, the authors included 15 studies that were subject to quality assessment and data extraction. All 15 studies reported on risk factors, and only three mentioned protective factors. Most reported risk factors were on an individual level and were related to socioeconomic status, mental health, alcohol and substance use, and life stress. Risk factors related to the family mainly related to adverse childhood experiences, while the community level concerned access to education, work, and conflicts. The results indicate a large knowledge gap about protective factors for suicide and suicidal behaviour. The few protective factors reported were related to men having a family, high socioeconomic status, and being born between 1901 and 1950.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207