Preventing Suicide among Indigenous Australians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tis chapter begins with an overview of the recent epidemiological trends in suicide and attempted suicide for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and how this compares with the situation in other post-colonial English-speaking nations such as Canada, the USA and New Zealand. We then review qualitative studies exploring the meaning of suicide within the Indigenous community context, how these inform our understandings of suicidal behaviour and their value for informing preventive action. These highlight the individual, community or situational factors which appear to be associated with increased risk for suicide and suicidal behaviour. Life-course studies of individuals who develop suicidal behaviour or complete suicide are also considered to identify the specific situations and processes that trigger or escalate suicidal behaviour. Recent Australian and international data indicate certain social circumstances, particularly contexts of ‘bereavement overload’, where suicidal behaviours may become socially contagious, with ‘copy-cat’ suicidal behaviour. The chapter concludes with a discussion of what works in prevention, early intervention and post-vention including proactive bereavement support, containment of suicide clusters, as well as longer-term strategies for community healing following collectively experienced trauma.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".