MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402429816 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(24)00152-x

The effect of economic downturn, financial hardship, unemployment, and relevant government responses on suicide

2024· review· en· W4402429816 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Sinyor, Morton M. Silverman, Jane Pirkis, Keith Hawton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentRecessionGovernment (linguistics)EconomicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Financial crisisDemographic economicsMedicineLabour economicsEconomic growthKeynesian economicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic circumstances and related factors, including unemployment and poverty, can have substantial effects on suicide rates. This relationship applies in all countries, irrespective of their World Bank income status or level of development. Therefore, means of mitigating such influences are essential components of strategies to reduce suicides. In this Series paper, we consider examples of such initiatives, including national policies to try to reduce the effect of economic downturns, efforts to maintain employment and avoid damaging austerity measures, maintenance of reasonable minimum wage levels, and specific policies to assist those most affected by poverty. We also highlight upstream measures such as investment in transport infrastructure, industries, and retraining programmes. Positive public health messaging that encourages coping, together with discouragement of media stories with messages that could contribute to hopelessness in those experiencing economic difficulties, can also be important components of strategies to try to reduce the effect of economic downturn on suicide.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207