Impact of the “Suicidological Library” Series on the Advancement of Polish Suicidology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2021, researchers affiliated with the Polish Association of Suicidology have initiated the publication of multi-author monographs as part of the “Suicidological Library” series. To date, three volumes have been released. This article aims to explore how these monographs have contributed to the field of suicidology. Each volume was produced under the scientific editorshipof Prof. Brunon Hołyst and involved a diverse editorial board comprising leading Polish suicidologists as well as experts from the USA, Sweden, Germany, Austria, and Canada. While the “Suicidology” yearbook helped unify the suicidology research community and disseminate knowledge between 2005 and 2018, the “Suicidological Library” series has further strengthened this trend. It not only presents the findings of esteemed Polish suicidologists, but it also showcases the research of emerging scholars in this challenging field.
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 | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.013 |
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".