Outcomes of adolescents treated involuntarily under the Canadian mental health act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restraint takes several forms. The effects on adolescents of the social form of constraint know as formal certification are considered wherein patient legal status is involuntary, compelling them to remain in a treatment setting for 30 days (renewable) under the Mental Health Act. Annual data collected in the regional CAMHP information system from 2002-2006 (n = 21,107 referrals) was used to compare clinical characteristics and functional outcomes of voluntary and involuntary patients with formal certification status under the Mental Health Act. Analyses included descriptive statistics, (e.g. clinical characteristis, population-based rates and frequencies), regression, logistic regression and Chi Square analysis, with graphical representation. Compared to those without status, those with certification status had on average 6 (n = 752) registrations system wide for those with status compared to 1 (n = 20,656) for system wide those without status. For those treated at the same level of inpatient or urgent service, an average of 6 registrations were observed (n = 390) for those with status compared to an average of 3 admissions (n = 1416) for those without status. Those treated at the same level of inpatient or urgent service with status were older and had significantly more comorbidity, greater urgency on admission and longer lengths of stay. More than those without status, status patients more often were diagnosed with psychosis and more often had child protection status. Those with status were more functionally impaired on admission, but were comparable to those without status on discharge. Formal certification appears to be used on a unique population of patients (involuntary) who require treatment and differ substantially from patients without formal status (voluntary). It appears that this legislative form of restraint does not impair the functional improvement of this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".