Социальные патологии в детско-подростковом возрасте (на примере исследований суицидального поведения)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social pathologies in childhood and adolescence, and especially suicides, have a negative impact on formation of labor and human potential. Preventing socio-economic and demographic losses caused by them assumes special significance.Russian Federation is one of those countries, having the excessive level of extending social pathologies, especially among men of working age. At present our country stands first in Europe according to the number of suicides among children and adolescents and heads the list of European countries with the maximum mortality rate from violent causes among young people aged from 10 to 29 years. Victimization level among underage people declines with lesser pace than among adult population. Number of Russian children and adolescents registered with severe mental diseases is steadily growing. Contribution of homicides and suicides to the common structure of population’s mortality is quite considerable (one quarter of all deaths from external causes). The article presents the results of assessing the socio-economic damage due to mortality rate from several social pathologies in 2013 in the Vologda Oblast. Losses from mortality due to suicides comprised around 2 billion roubles in money terms, or 0.6% of gross regional product (GRP), owing to homicides, they equaled 1.25 billion roubles, or 0.4% of GRP, caused by alcohol 3 billion roubles, or 0.9% of GRP. The overwhelming share of losses was accounted for men. Maximum number of lost years of productive life in case of suicides fell within the young age (three quarters of all losses from suicides). Assessment of demographic damage showed that losses of expected lifespan due to the mortality rate from suicides, homicides and causes connected with alcohol consumption, comprised 1.3 years. However, the peak of demographic damage was accounted for the age group under 19 years old. The range and previously mentioned indicators of extending social pathologies, first of all, suicides, allow to raise a question of threat to oncoming generation of the RF and the necessity of taking steps to prevent this phenomenon.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.010 |
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".