Evaluating Population-Level Interventions and Exposures for Suicide Prevention
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluations of interventions targeting the population level are an essential component of the policy development cycle. Pre-post designs are widespread in suicide prevention research but have several significant limitations. To inform future evaluations, our aim is to explore the three most frequently used approaches for assessing the association between population-level interventions or exposures and suicide - the pre-post design, the difference-in-difference design, and Poisson regression approaches. The pre-post design and the difference-in-difference design will only produce unbiased estimates of an association if there are no underlying time trends in the data and there is no additional confounding from other sources. Poisson regression approaches with covariates for time can control for underlying time trends as well as the effects of other confounding factors. Our recommendation is that the default position should be to model the effects of population-level interventions or exposures using regression methods that account for time effects. The other designs should be seen as fall-back positions when insufficient data are available to use methods that control for time effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it