MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399908957 · doi:10.1590/ce.v29i0.93835

FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT IN FAMILIES OF PEOPLE WITH SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR: APPLICATION OF THE CALGARY MODEL

2024· article· en· W4399908957 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCogitare Enfermagem · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal behaviorPsychologyMedicineMedical emergencySuicide preventionPoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: unveil the actions that maintain the functionality of the family of people with suicidal behavior. Method: this is a qualitative, descriptive-exploratory study, based on the theoretical and methodological framework of the Calgary Family Assessment Model. 11 users of the Suicide Study and Prevention Center, located in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, participated in the online meeting in 2022 to construct the family genogram. In the second stage, the interview included nine user families. Results: the following categories emerged: surveillance by family members; family member’s use of technology for daily contact; management of the suicidal crisis by family members and family attention to basic needs, all categories related to a person with suicidal behavior. Conclusion: there are ways to implement health policies and manuals that guide family and friends in managing the suicidal crisis, thus avoiding undesirable consequences, such as the suicide attempt and the completed act.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.293 · 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