MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411638822 · doi:10.1177/10541373251350201

The Suicidal Clock: Temporal Constriction and the Chronological Collapse of Narrative Identity

2025· article· en· W4411638822 on OpenAlexaff
Matias Gay

Bibliographic record

VenueIllness Crisis & Loss · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeIdentity (music)PsychologyConstrictionPsychoanalysisHistoryArtLiteratureMedicineAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective This study reconceptualizes suicide as a collapse of lived temporality and narrative identity, framing suicidality as a progressive erosion of coherence, meaning, and chronological selfhood. Design and Method A qualitative, narrative-phenomenological synthesis was conducted using interpretative phenomenological analysis and thematic narrative coding. Data sources included ethically published suicide notes, psychological autopsy research, and theoretical literature on time, identity, and psychache. The analysis was structured using the Existential Network of Suicidal Identity (ENSI) framework and triangulated with the suicide crisis syndrome (SCS), three-step theory (3ST), and fluid vulnerability theory (FVT). Results Three progressive stages of suicidal collapse were identified: (1) existential disintegration and loss of future orientation; (2) relational and narrative fragmentation; and (3) acute temporal constriction, psychache, and cognitive narrowing. Suicide often emerged not as a wish to die, but as an effort to escape from an unlivable chronology. Conclusions Understanding suicide as a narrative-temporal implosion expands clinical assessment beyond symptom checklists. Early detection of temporal disconnection and narrative foreclosure may enhance intervention and support identity reconstruction over time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIllness Crisis & LossSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207