Stopping the Gender Paradox: Male-Specific Interventions for Suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The “gender paradox” describes the phenomenon in which men are more likely to die by suicide, despite women being more likely to experience suicidal ideation and attempt suicide. Men experience unique social pressures associated with masculinity which affects their ability to seek and benefit from suicide interventions. Despite this, the Canadian public health strategy does not specifically account for the male experience when developing suicide interventions. Objective: This literature review sought to determine the efficacy of male-specific interventions on male suicidality and compare the efficacy of these interventions to one another. It also aimed to identify what male-specific interventions are available in Canada and the feasibility of introducing or reinforcing these interventions nationally. Methods: The literature review used PubMed and Semantic Scholar to find articles relating to male-tailored suicide interventions. A search using three national suicide prevention websites produced a list of male-specific interventions available in Canada. Results: The literature search produced five articles, three of which discussed informational, internet-based interventions and two of which discussed community-based interventions. There were no studies which compared male-specific interventions to each other. Of the five male-specific interventions available in Canada, three were internet-based and two were community-based. Conclusion: Male-specific interventions, regardless of modality, appealed to men and increased help-seeking behaviour. These interventions were generally accessible and cost-effective to the user. No conclusions can be drawn regarding which male-specific intervention is most effective in decreasing male suicide.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".