SuiChat-CN: Benchmarking Contextual Suicide Risk Assessment in Chinese Group Chats
Suicide is a critical global public health challenge, causing approximately 720,000 deaths each year and calling for timely, effective prevention strategies. Existing computational studies primarily focus on post-based social media platforms such as Twitter and Weibo, leaving instant messaging environments such as Telegram underexplored. Yet group chats pose distinct challenges: messages are short, fragmented, multi-party, and often rely on implicit or culturally specific expressions, making iso
Record details
Published: 27 May 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Healthcare · Environment
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Social Media as a Driver of Obesity in Children and Adolescents (Aged 6-18 Years): It Is Time for Regulatory Action
JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research) · 10 August 2026
Long Live Fine-Tuning: Task-Specific Transformers Outperform Zero-Shot LLMs for Misinformation Response Classification on Reddit
arXiv · 2 June 2026
Beyond Output Matching: Preserving Internal Geometry in NVFP4 LLM Distillation
arXiv · 4 June 2026
The Challenges of Balancing AI Compliance and Technological Innovations in Critical Sectors: A Systematic Literature Review
arXiv · 9 May 2026
Multi-element Persuasion in Social Media Health Communication: Synergistic and Trade-off Effects
arXiv · 30 April 2026
Benchmarking the Safety of Large Language Models for Robotic Health Attendant Control
arXiv · 29 April 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (27 May 2026), “SuiChat-CN: Benchmarking Contextual Suicide Risk Assessment in Chinese Group Chats,” evidence record 3625, https://ethics.ai/record/3625 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.