Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract Suicide is typically looked at from an individual perspective, as a symptom of psychopathology, as a function of many risk factors. Theories of suicide usually take this approach. For the understanding of suicide among Inuit, these theories are unsatisfactory. There is a move within suicidology to take on a critical viewpoint, examining how social, contextual, historical, and political factors contribute to self-destruction (White, Marsh, Kral, & Morris 2016). This is how suicide is viewed in this book. The sociocultural–historical context of Inuit suicide is described as a function of imperialism/colonialism. This book is the story of how life for Inuit was changed dramatically by the government beginning in the 1950s, and how this has negatively affected relationships within this family-based culture; it is a look at suicide among the Inuit and how one community has done something about it. The story that emerges here is of how imperialism and colonialism changed family lives and created a perturbation responsible for social problems including suicide. Suicide among Inuit is a problem of youth, and victims are getting younger all the time. Inuit believe that many youth are being neglected and ignored and that they need adult attention and love. I found that a number of youth feel alone, unloved, and angry. The anger is often directed at parents or at romantic counterparts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.541 | 0.307 |
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".