Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are various types of incapacity in the civil law of Québec. The provisions of the Civil Code concerning the interdiction of incapable persons are now supplemented by various statutes. In all cases, a curator — and generally the public curator — is appointed to accept or refuse treatment for an incapable person. Except in cases of serious emergency, it is clearly established that any treatment, whether medical or psychiatric, must be preceeded by the patient's informed consent. While some recourses already exist to protect the rights of an incapable patient for whom a curator has been appointed, this is not the case for psychiatric patients who are of legal age and legally competent, but who refuse treatment. In these cases, it is suggested that the decisions of Québec courts that have recognized a « defacto incapacity » and, consequently, forcible treatment on the basis of the « parens patriae » doctrine, may be ill-founded. This opinion is based on the application of the principles of self-determination and the inviolability of the human person, and by establishing a parallel with constitutional rights recognized by American courts which are now echoed in the new Canadian Charter of Rights. The author suggests that all recourses involving refusal of treatment be referred to a centralized administrative tribunal, in the light of the reform of the Civil Code.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".