Mapping the Emergence of Critical Suicide Studies: An Exploratory Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical suicide studies, as a formal and recognizable entity, is a relatively new site of scholarship, practice, and activism. It has emerged in the early part of the 21st century in response to some perceived limitations of dominant formulations of suicide and mainstream suicide prevention practices. In this article, we present findings from a qualitative research study undertaken to understand how critical suicide studies is unfolding and with what potential effects. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine scholars, practitioners, activists, and/or those with lived experience, recruited from the Critical Suicide Studies Listserv (electronic mailing list). To analyze our data, we used reflexive thematic analysis and drew on a social constructionist orientation, which acknowledges the historically and culturally contingent nature of suicide, suicidology, and practices of suicide prevention. Three overlappping themes were generated based on our analysis. As a mode of critique, critical suicide studies provides an interruption to the status quo. As a conceptual resource, it offers an alternative way of understanding suicide. As an applied practice, it offers possibilities for “doing” suicide prevention differently. Implications for future research, practice, and social change are discussed.
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 | 0.040 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".