Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicide is a significant public health issue in Canada, with rural areas and young people experiencing a higher incidence of suicides. To address this issue, the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) developed Roots of Hope, a community-led suicide prevention model with five pillars and 13 guiding principles. The model is flexible and tailored to meet specific community needs, and an initial research demonstration project has shown promising results. The ongoing implementation of Roots of Hope has the potential to significantly impact suicide prevention efforts throughout Canada. The model aligns with the MHCC’s mission of empowering communities to develop and implement their own solutions and exchange best practices. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgency of suicide prevention and the need for resources specifically designed to meet community needs. The positive outcomes of Roots of Hope offer the potential to make a meaningful impact on the lives of Canadians.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".