Firearms lethal means safety among Veterans: Attitudes toward involving a concerned significant other
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This quality improvement project evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of involving concerned significant others (CSOs) in lethal means safety with Veterans who had suicidal ideation or a prior suicide attempt. Methods: Using a mixed-methods design, dyads were recruited to participate in qualitative interviews on current practices, attitudes, and recommendations related to secure firearm storage from the Veteran and CSO perspectives. Veterans (n = 29) and their CSOs (n = 4) were individually interviewed. Results: A majority of Veterans (n = 25) emphasized the importance of engaging in safe firearm practices, and many indicated that they wanted to discuss firearm access openly. In addition, most Veterans (n = 26) were receptive to a CSO limiting firearm access. Although the number of participating CSOs was small, all (n = 4) indicated a willingness to securely store firearms and emphasized the importance of having direct conversations about firearm storage with Veterans. Discussion: Findings provide initial support for receptiveness toward a person-level intervention incorporating a CSO into firearm safety planning for Veterans at risk for 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".