AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial: a Canadian legal perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian legal tests of fitness to stand trial, while similar to tests in the United States, place less emphasis on rational understanding of the complexities of the trial process and greater emphasis on communicating with legal counsel. The limited cognitive capacity test has gained wide acceptance in Canadian jurisprudence as a balance between ensuring that an accused person can provide the necessary information to allow his legal counsel to defend him adequately while also minimizing the potential delay in a speedy trial. The tests have been criticized by organized psychiatry and legal scholars but have been supported by advocacy groups for the mentally ill. Canadian research on accused persons committed to hospitals for fitness evaluations suggests that this process may be used or, arguably, misused by psychiatrists to provide treatment to persons who would otherwise be inaccessible to psychiatric intervention. This raises complex ethics-related questions not yet fully addressed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
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".