Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. This descriptive study examined Ontario ED nurses' knowledge about, and attitudes towards, parasuicide. The phenomenon of nursing agency provided a useful framework to examine the relationships among the basic conditioning factors (age, gender, sociocultural orientation, clinical specialty, resource availability, nursing education, professional and personal experiences), knowledge about, and attitudes towards, parasuicide. Methods. A random sample of 400 Ontario ED nurses, stratified by gender, was surveyed by mail. A total of 113 ED nurses completed the survey for a response rate of 28%. Demographic information was collected and research instruments included the Suicide Opinion Questionnaire (Domino, MacGregor, & Hannah, 1988-1989; Rogers & DeShon, 1992, 1995), the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), and the Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status (Hollingshead, 1978). Open-ended questions were also used to examine professional and personal experiences with parasuicide. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, frequency tables, bivariate correlations, hierarchical multiple regression, and content analysis. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2002 .W38. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 41-04, page: 1060. Adviser: Martha Elizabeth Horsburgh. Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2002.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".