MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401507828 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306929

Rural suicide in Newfoundland and Labrador: A qualitative exploration of health care providers’ perspectives

2024· article· en· W4401507828 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tyler R. Pritchard, Jennifer L. Buckle, Kristel Thomassin, Stephen P. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsThematic analysisSuicide preventionRural areaRural healthQualitative researchIntervention (counseling)Health careMedicinePoison controlOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthNursingPsychologySociologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Residents of rural regions may have higher and unique suicide risks. Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) is a Canadian province replete with rural regions. Despite an abundance of rural suicide research, heterogeneity in rural regions may preclude amalgamating findings to inform prevention efforts. Thus, exploring the unique needs of NL is needed. Importantly, health care providers (HCP) may afford unique perspectives on the suicide-related needs or concerns of rural life. We asked HCPs of residents of rural NL their perceived suicide risk factors, concerns, and needs for rural NL. METHOD: Twelve HCPs of rural residents of NL completed virtual semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis [13,14]. RESULTS: HCPs noted individual, psychological, social, and practical factors linked to rural-suicide risk and subsequent needs. Findings highlight the unique challenges of residing and providing health care in rural NL and inform prevention and intervention efforts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→