Engagement in meaningful activities post suicide loss: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Each day, more than 10 Canadians die by suicide. Each suicide leaves entire communities to manage the traumatic aftermath of this loss. Individuals bereaved by suicide loss are at a higher risk of experiencing negative mental health outcomes. Current research suggests that engagement in meaningful activities may be an avenue to protecting mental health. It is important to understand if this is also the case for those experiencing bereavement post suicide loss. To date, there has not been a synthesis of the literature examining suicide loss and the nature and extent of engagement in meaningful activities post loss. OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe the nature and extent of the peer-reviewed suicide loss and bereavement literature related to engagement in meaningful activities; and 2) to identify facilitators and barriers that may impact engagement in meaningful activities post loss. METHODS: This paper describes a scoping review protocol that will be completed using stages identified by Arksey and O'Malley and updated by Levac and colleagues. Joanna Briggs Institute framework will also guide this review. Four electronic databases will be searched for suicide bereavement/loss concepts. Two reviewers will apply inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify articles discussing engagement in meaningful activities of everyday living post loss. Data will be descriptively summarized and analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results will be reported following PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. EXPECTED RESULTS: A descriptive summary and conceptual map describing the current state of the peer-reviewed literature will be constructed. CONCLUSION: Experiencing a suicide loss increases the risk of negative mental health outcomes. A synthesis of literature is required to map the current available evidence related to suicide bereavement and engagement in meaningful activities, with potential implications for improving supports and services for those bereaved. This protocol is register with Open Science Framework Registries (10.17605/OSF.IO/M2NES).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.131 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.016 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".