Preliminary Identification of Protective and Risk Factors for Suicidal Behaviours Among Indigenous Adults Living in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Suicide rates for Indigenous people living in many areas in Canada are higher than those of the general Canadian population. \nObjective: To identify protective and risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviours in the Indigenous community living in Toronto. \nDatabase: Our Health Counts Toronto database, the largest urban Indigenous health study of 897 Indigenous adult participants (15+), was analyzed. \nMethods: Conducted modified logistic regression utilizing R and SAS software across six domains: \ni)\tSelf and Community Relationship \nii)\tSocial Determinants of Health \niii)\tHealth / Exercise \niv)\tFamily / Social Support \nv)\tSubstance Use \nvi)\tCultural Identity / Resources \nResults: Factors associated with higher suicidality include substance use and challenges accessing cultural ceremonies, while protective factors include full-time employment, and education. \nConclusion: Socio-demographic factors are associated with risk of suicide. Cultural and structurally relevant factors and interventions may reduce the risk of suicide in the urban Indigenous community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".