MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385308637 · doi:10.5014/ajot.2023.77s2-po162

Suicide Safety Planning: A Systematic Review Supporting OT Research & Practice

2023· review· en· W4385308637 on OpenAlexaff
Carrie Anne Marshall, Pavlina Crowley, Dave Carmichael, Suliman Aryobi, Rebecca Goldszmidt, Roxanne Isard, Corinna Easton, Julia Holmes, Susanne Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health CareWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)Systematic reviewSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthPsychologyMedicinePoison controlMEDLINEPsychiatryMedical emergencyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Date Presented 04/22/2023 Suicide is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. OTs regularly encounter persons who are at risk of suicide in their practice, and they need to be aware of strategies to mitigate risk. Suicide safety planning is an evidence-based intervention designed for this purpose. We conducted this systematic review to synthesize effectiveness studies to determine the outcomes and components of safety planning interventions to direct future OT research and practice. Primary Author and Speaker: Carrie Anne Marshall Contributing Authors: Pavlina Crowley, Dave Carmichael, Suliman Aryobi, Rebecca A. Goldszmidt, Roxanne Isard, Corinna Easton, Julia Holmes, Susanne Murphy

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0200.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.502
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.107 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207