Evolving systems of care: Individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in custody of civil and forensic psychiatric services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following psychiatric deinstitutionalization and changes in involuntary civil commitment laws, many individuals with severe mental disorders have been receiving mental health services through the back door, that is, the criminal justice system. Significant changes to the section of Criminal Code of Canada dealing with individuals with mental disorders have led to significant annual increases in the number of individuals declared Not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), many of whom are directed to civil psychiatric settings. The goal of the present study was to describe the psychosociocriminological and risk characteristics of individuals found NCRMD remanded to civil psychiatric hospitals (CPH) compared to a forensic psychiatric hospital (FPH). This study was conducted between October 2004 and August 2006 in the sole FPH of the province of Québec and two large CPH in the Montréal metropolitan area. The final sample for the current study consisted of 96 men: 60 from the FPH and 36 from the two CPH. Results indicate that individuals in both settings have similar psychosociocriminal profiles, including PCL-R scores, but that individuals in CPH have higher scores in the Risk subscale of the HCR-20 than do their counterparts in the FPH. This difference is due to a higher score on two items: exposure to destabilizing factors and noncompliance with remediation attempts. Results are discussed in terms of the need for civil psychiatric settings to implement risk assessment and management programs into their services, and the need for further research into forensic mental health services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".