MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132974160

An Analysis of Emergency Department Self-harm Presentations during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2022· dissertation· W7132974160 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Madeleine Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoAmerican Foundation for Suicide Prevention
KeywordsPandemicEmergency departmentOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionInjury preventionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Poison controlProxy (statistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by concerns regarding increased suicides due to exacerbated stressors and the potential impact of SARS-Cov-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. Emergency department (ED) self-harm presentations can be used as a proxy indicator for suicides. Therefore, the current study analyzed the number of self-harm presentations to the three major trauma centres in Toronto, Canada during the pandemic’s first year. A chart review of presenting patients was then conducted to characterize the pandemic’s potential suicidogenic effects and identify at-risk populations. It was hypothesized that ED self-harm presentations would increase and presentation characteristics would change during the pandemic. It was found that while self-harm presentations did not increase, the proportion of medically severe injuries increased, and several suicide-related risk factors were independently associated with pandemic presentations. These results may be informative for suicide prevention strategies targeting vulnerable populations both during the pandemic and beyond.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.386 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→