MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1563034068

Arrested Adults Awaiting Arraignment: Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Criminal Justice Characteristics and Needs

2003· article· en· W1563034068 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nahama Broner, Stacy Lamon, Damon Mayrl, Martin Karopkin

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenter for Mental Health ServicesState Justice InstituteNew York City Department of Health and Mental HygieneNational Institute of Mental HealthYork UniversityU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMental healthCriminal justicePsychological interventionSubstance abuseHuman servicesEconomic JusticePsychiatryPsychologyMental health lawCriminologyMedicinePolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Study is one of the first to look at the mentally ill during the pre-arraignment process. The pre-arraignment process is an excellent place to identify individuals with mental health and substance abuse problems, to examine those problems, to consider legal interventions, such as diversion or routing to specialized courts, for instance, drug and mental health courts, and to plan for community mental health, substance abuse, health, and social service interventions. Following a brief review of the literature on rates of substance abuse and mental health problems for ciminal justice populations, the process from arrest to arraignment in Kings County (Brooklyn) is described. This Study concludes with a discussion of the implication of results for practice, criminal justice intervention, and policy.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207