The Relationship Between Attitudes Toward Suicide and Suicidal Ideation and Attempts Among Chinese College Students: The Mediating Role of Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attitudes toward suicide are complex and multifaceted. Their predictive roles and how they interact with mental health in suicidal ideation and suicide attempts are not well understood. Elaborating on attitudes toward suicide can help contribute to suicide prevention. The current study examined whether and how attitudes toward suicide and depression levels are involved in suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among college students. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 1,427 Chinese college students (61.32% females; mean age, 22.42 years), of whom 570 reported suicidal ideation. Participants completed questionnaires to assess their endorsed attitude toward suicide, stigmatized attitude toward suicide, self-stigma toward suicide, depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. Structural equation modeling revealed that the associations between the three types of attitudes, i.e., endorsed attitude, stigmatized attitude, and self-stigma, and suicidal ideation and suicide attempts were fully or partially mediated by depression. The results suggested that attitudes toward suicide significantly influence suicidal behaviors through depression levels and future suicide prevention efforts should consider these influences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".