MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417049654 · doi:10.70594/brain/16.4/33

Forty Years of Knowledge Development on Emotional Abuse and Suicide – AI-Assisted Bibliometric and Empirical Insights

2025· article· W4417049654 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Loredana Ileana Vîșcu, Ioana-Eva Cădariu, C. Edward Watkins, Alina Constantin, Cristian Delcea, Costel Vasile Siserman

Bibliographic record

VenueBRAIN BROAD RESEARCH IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND NEUROSCIENCE · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationMultidisciplinary approachDepression (economics)Suicide preventionEmpirical researchObservational studyPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p dir="ltr"><span>This bibliometric study investigates worldwide research patterns on emotional abuse and suicide in 898 papers from 1985 to 2025 using data from the Web of Science Core Collection analysed with VOSviewer to study keyword co-occurrence, thematic clusters, temporal development, and country-level collaboration. Five primary research clusters focusing on suicide, childhood trauma, depression, risk factors among adolescents, and emotion regulation were revealed by the analysis. The USA, Canada, China, and England were found to be core contributors in worldwide co-authorship networks.Additionally, an empirical observational analysis was performed on 50 anonymised inpatients from the Socola Institute of Psychiatry in Iasi, assessing the severity of depression (HAM-D), suicidal ideation (BSS) and clinical follow-up results over a period of nine months.In the empirical arm of this study, which involved 50 anonymised inpatients, depression severity scores (HAM-D) and suicidal ideation (BSS) showed significant reductions from admission to nine-month follow-up (p < 0.001), while residual depressive symptoms at discharge (HAM-D T1) independently predicted persistent suicidality (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.02–1.23, p = 0.014). Results point toward the intricate, multidisciplinary nature of the field and the increasing concentration on trauma-informed prevention approaches.</span></p>

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0240.043
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.355
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Bibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBRAIN BROAD RESEARCH IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND NEUROSCIENCESame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207