Le refus de soins psychiatriques est-il possible au Québec ? Discussion à la lumière du cas de l’autorisation de soins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le droit à l’inviolabilité de la personne est fondamental au regard du droit québécois et son actualisation procède notamment du refus de soins. Même dans le cas d’une inaptitude démontrée à consentir aux soins, les volontés individuelles doivent être au moins prises en compte, au mieux respectées, ce qui démontre l’importance accordée à l’autodétermination. La recherche empirique dont il est question ici porte sur l’actualisation de ces principes fondamentaux en matière psychiatrique. À la lumière de la jurisprudence, d’entretiens et d’observa-tions menées à la Cour supérieure du Québec, l’auteure documente les pratiques en matière d’autorisation de soins. L’examen des principes généraux du consentement et du refus de soins et des paramètres spécifiques à l’autorisation de soins permet de questionner, d’une part, la pertinence des interprétations et des applications actuelles et, d’autre part, leurs conséquences pour les patients psychiatriques.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".