MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386175921 · doi:10.22259/2638-5201.0202002

Post Facto Denial of Suicidal Intent in Suicide Attempts by Self-Burning in Kurdish Women

2019· article· en· W4386175921 on OpenAlexaff
Mariwan Husni, Nageen Mustafa, B Saeed, N Husni, Zdenek Cernovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDe factoDenialPsychologyCriminologyPolitical sciencePsychotherapistLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction:A wave of suicides by self-burning in young to middle-aged women was recently observed by medical staff in the ethnically Kurdish region of Northern Iraq. Materials and Method:The present study evaluated 15 female Kurdish patients (average age 26.7 years, SD=8.8) hospitalized for severe burns in that geographic region. Results:The area of the afflicted body surface ranged from 17% to 100% (average at 49.4 %, SD=26.7).The severity of the burns was determined to be of 3 rd degree in 11 of 12 patients for whom these ratings were available.While medical staff rated the burns in 14 of the 15 women (93.3%) as self-inflicted, only two of these patients (13.3%) admitted that their burns were intentional.Discussion: Perhaps these patients' denial was an attempt to avoid social or religious sanctions because Islam considers suicide as a major sin.Suicidal immolation has been more extensively studied in the neighboring Iran where it was also observed more frequently in females.Self-immolations are certainly not unique to the Middle-East as shown by a meta-analytic review by Thombs and Bresnick on US patients. Conclusion:Suicides by self-burning observed in this sample of Kurdish women were mostly of a very severe nature (3 rd degree burns) and involved predominantly young married women.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designObservational
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 venueArchives of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207