MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076739784 · doi:10.1159/000052058

Modes and Impact of Coercive Inpatient Treatment for Drug-Related Conditions in Switzerland

2002· article· en· W2076739784 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Addiction Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralFederal courtMedicineTurnoverPsychiatryFamily medicineLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Two forms of institutionalized pressure to treatment can be distinguished in Switzerland: civil commitment and court referral. In court referral, the referred patient has the right to refuse treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare court referrals for inpatient treatment to voluntary therapy. METHODS: Comparison of interviews at treatment entry and discharge records. RESULTS: There were few systematic differences at entry except for voluntary subjects having had less contact with the legal system before treatment, independently of the specific court referral. At discharge, voluntary patients had a better social integration and fewer legal problems. DISCUSSION: Legal problems waiting for court referrals at discharge may be a significant handicap for reintegration. Otherwise, voluntary patients and court referrals showed few systematic differences in inpatient treatment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.308 · 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