Dans la ligne de mire des audiences de révision de cure fermée : l’état mental et la dangerosité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents results following the observation of six court hearings of the Tribunal administratif du Québec reviewing involuntary confinement. All 6 hearings concerned individuals considered dangerous. Through thematic analysis of testimonies and interrogations of various people involved (psychiatrist, prosecutor, defence attorney, expert psychiatrist), the author examines signs and points of reference used by those involved to decide on the dangerousness of a psychiatric patient. The results reveal that there is no objective criteria emerging from the hearings and that the way to define the dangerousness of an individual is abstract as well as vague. In fact, it is only in the written decision following hearings one sees the first comments related to dangerousness. The hearing stages psychiatry's and the law's protagonists who discuss among themselves not the issue of dangerousness but rather the implicitness of compulsory treatment the person must share with them. In the written decision, this is what emerges of this discourse which appears to be translated in terms of dangerousness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".