MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392758701 · doi:10.1177/21677026241234319

Rural Suicide: A Systematic Review and Recommendations

2024· review· en· W4392758701 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychological Science · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySystematic reviewMEDLINEClinical psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide is a public-health concern that has been linked to multiple biological, psychological, and social risk factors. Rural living is purported to be a unique risk for suicide for myriad reasons. Yet there are some concerns with rural suicidology, notably regarding defining and operationalizing “rural.” Furthermore, the last comprehensive review of rural suicide is approximately 10 years old. With this in mind, in the current review, we offer (a) a comprehensive and updated overview of the operationalization and variability of rural in rural suicidology and (b) a summary of differences in direct and indirect suicide factors between rural and nonrural regions and whether potential differences depend on how rural is operationalized. Results indicate a high degree of heterogeneity in defining rural, rendering conclusions about both direct and indirect rural suicide risks unclear. We therefore present a set of recommendations for rural suicidologists to apply to enhance the understanding of suicide and, ultimately, prevent death by suicide in rural regions.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.007

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 head0.369
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.226 · 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