Dual Diagnosis Public Policy in a Federal System: The <scp>C</scp>anadian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Persons with dual diagnosis, defined as having both mental health needs and developmental disabilities, can have significant problems accessing appropriate and integrated care. It was hypothesized that jurisdictions across Canada would be lacking in legislation and policy regarding care for dual diagnosis. A legislative scan was performed, encompassing statutes and regulations, followed by a search of government ministerial Web sites to identify policy; relevant persons within ministries were contacted for clarification and further information. Findings indicated that no province or territory within Canada currently has legislation regarding dual diagnosis; four have policies addressing dual diagnosis care. Some policies exclude people with disabilities from qualifying as having a psychiatric disorder, and some policies exclude people with certain types of psychiatric disorders. The patchwork of regional legislation and policy in Canada suggests that dual diagnosis care would be better facilitated if rights to such were enshrined within legislation. Ratification by Canada of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and a national mental health strategy provide a new policy context that is worth monitoring in relation to rectifying the current situation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".