“It definitely saved my life, just telling people”: Experiences of northern individuals seeking support for suicidal ideation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicide in northern British Columbia [BC] is an understudied but prominent health concern. This study aimed to understand the individual experiences of those seeking support for suicidal ideation in northern BC and, specifically, sought to understand what responses are perceived as helpful and not helpful. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, five semi-structured interviews were conducted, resulting in four main themes found across each interview, each with two sub-themes. These four themes include: 1) Death Avoidance, where participants discussed how death and suicide were avoided, missed, dismissed, and hidden by themselves and others as well as the widespread silence around mental health and suicide in communities; 2) Power and Powerlessness, which describes the power that suicide held over the participants and their attempts at reclaiming some of that power; 3) Meaning and Meaninglessness, which explores the search for purpose and meaning each participant underwent; and 4) Connection and Safety, which discusses the complex interactions between connection and disconnection, and the ways that felt sense of safety, or the lack of, impacted connection and suicide. This study supports existing literature that describes the importance of safe and validating connections that allow for options, choice, and exploration of meaning. Moving forward, collaborating with individuals considering suicide in a trauma-informed manner that emphasizes respect, validation, power, and meaning is recommended.,
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".