How do adolescents consider life and death? A cognition-to-action framework for suicide prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rising rates of suicide fatality, attempts, and ideations among adolescents aged 10-19 over the past two decades represent a national public health priority. Theories that seek to understand suicidal ideation overwhelmingly focus on the transition from ideation to attempt and on a sole cognition: active suicidal ideation - the serious consideration of killing one's self, with less attention to non-suicidal cognitions that emerge during adolescence that may have implications for suicidal behavior. A large body of research exists that characterizes adolescence not only as a period of heightened onset and prevalence of active suicidal ideation and the desire to no longer be alive (i.e., passive suicidal ideation), but also for non-suicidal cognitions about life and death. Our review synthesizes extant literature in the content, timing and mental imagery of thoughts adolescents have about their (1) life; and (2) mortality that may co-occur with active and passive suicidal ideation that have received limited attention in adolescent suicidology. Our "cognition-to-action framework for adolescent suicide prevention" builds on existing ideation-to-action theories to identify life and non-suicidal mortality cognitions during adolescence that represent potential leverage points for the prevention of attempted suicide and premature death during this period and across the life span.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".