The challenge of the Canada Act, 1982 to existing mental health legislation : implications for planning, mental health legislation and rights in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the proclamation of the Canada Act, 1982 there has begun in Canada a questioning of legislation that is restrictive of human rights. Mental health legislation is an example of a restrictive act in that it defines procedures for enforced or compulsory treatment procedures that remove certain human rights. This study examines mental health legislation in the light of the challenge posed by the Charter of Rights and Freedom's entrenched in the Canada Act by using a descriptive analysis of legislation. Legislation in Canada, and mental health legislation in England and Canada are examined according to their administration and subject development. The mental health acts for five Canadian provinces are used for the sample. The framework of the study is that of a planner commencing with problem definition, analysis and resultant solutions or recommendations. The planner in this context advises on legislation, and on the implementation of legislation. From the analysis of the study it was found that legislation is interactive with the economic, technological and social value issues within society. For mental health it was noted that the legislation does not address health or treatment but rather compulsory treatment of individuals deemed to be "mentally disordered" and in need of treatment for their own or society's protection. As well, it was found that the label "mental disorder", defined differently in each province, results in the application of restrictions on an individual so defined, in the contents of other provincial acts. As Canadians are not asking for the removal of compulsory treatment procedures but for a recognition of rights and freedoms, this study makes recommendation to address the limiting items in mental health acts so that injustices in provincial statutes do not continue.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".