La réforme du Code criminel canadien en matière de troubles mentaux et son impact sur la détention des justiciables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses how pre-trial detention has become an important instrument in the treatment of the accused whose mental state has been questioned during the judicial process. This study is part of a major research trend centered on the hypothesis of criminalization of the mental illness. This hypothesis has been defined as a shift of groups of the population from the mental health system to the criminal justice system. First, the authors examine how the Criminal Code's dispositions and those regarding mental disorder, which have been revised in February 1992, can be associated with the Court's decisions regarding the release of the accused during the legal process. Then, the authors continue to look into the question concerning the articulation of dual decisional logic (judicial and psychiatric) by studying approximately 1 000 cases heard before the Criminal and Penal Chamber of the Québec Court in Montréal in 1992-1993, in which the mental illness issue was raised. This analysis will try to demonstrate a link between pre-trial detention and mental health problems. It will also show that, despite the adoption of the principle of presumption against custody during assessment orders regarding mental disorder, the Court practices are changing slowly and the new dispositions are rarely used.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".