MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Duty to Warn and Protect—Impact on Practice

2000· review· en· W1854874 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gary Chaimowitz, Graham Glancy, Janice Blackburn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTorture, Ethics, and Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityHamilton Psychiatric Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuty to warnPsychologyMedicineMedical emergencyComputer securityComputer scienceConfidentiality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the concepts of the duty to protect and the associated threat to confidentiality and their impact on practice for Canadian psychiatrists. METHOD: We review these concepts and provide a synthesis of legal cases impacting psychiatric practice. CONCLUSION: The onus is on the psychiatrist to make him or herself aware of the current state of the legal obligation with respect to duty to protect. The evolving concept of duty to protect has and will continue to have significant impact on the practice of psychiatry.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicTorture, Ethics, and LawFrench-language works237,207