MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096150521

Adolescent Suicide in Quebec and Prior Utilization of Medical Services

2016· article· en· W7096150521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicide preventionPsychopathologyPoison controlPsychological interventionOccupational safety and healthMental healthInjury preventionMedical services
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Psychopathology is the main risk factor for adolescent suicide but several studies have shown that only a small proportion of suicide victims receive mental health care during the months preceding their suicide. The goal of this study is to describe the uti-lization of medical services by Quebec adolescent suicide victims during the year preced-ing their suicide. Methods: All suicides of persons aged 19 or less that occurred during a five-year period were retrieved from the Quebec Coroner’s database. Corresponding medical services uti-lization data were retrieved from the Quebec physician payment database (RAMQ) and the Quebec hospitalization database (MED-ECHO). Data were analyzed in terms of types and intensity of medical services (physical or psychiatric), types of providers (general prac-titioners, psychiatrists, and other medical specialists), and timing of interventions relative to the date of suicide. Results: 78 % of all Quebec adolescent suicide victims utilized medical services during the year before their suicide. However, only 12 % of all victims received medical attention for

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchFrench-language works237,207