MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024031360 · doi:10.1080/17449200701321779

Mental health and suicide prevention services for Canadian prisoners

2007· article· en· W2024031360 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marc Daigle

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Prisoner Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-PinelUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMandateRemand (court procedure)Suicide preventionCriminal justiceMedicinePsychiatryCognitive dissonancePsychologyPoison controlCriminologyMedical emergencyLawPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a dissonance between the purposes and services of the justice system compared to the needs of suicidal people or those with mental health problems. Correctional authorities are faced with sometimes difficult responsibilities when they have to incarcerate those who fall through the gaps in the social safety net. Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) mandate is to carry out the sentences of two or more years imposed by the Court; consequently that federal authority may have more time and means than its provincial counterparts receive for inmates on remand or serving shorter sentences. CSC developed strategies for inmates with mental health problems and, specifically, an exhaustive suicide prevention program. The implementation of all the components of the mental health strategy is not completed but it is based on good planning. With respect to suicide prevention activities, these are mainly based on screening the most vulnerable inmates at the time of intake, but they cover a larger spectrum.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Prisoner HealthSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207