Factors Associated with Review Board Dispositions following Re‐hospitalization among Discharged Persons found Not Criminally Responsible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Canadian forensic mental health system, a person found Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) and given a conditional discharge returns to the community while remaining under the jurisdiction of a provincial/territorial Review Board. However, the individual can be re-hospitalized while on conditional discharge, for reasons such as substance use, violation of conditions, or violence. We investigated whether being re-hospitalized has an impact on the factors associated with the subsequent Review Board disposition. Persons found NCRMD from the three largest Canadian provinces who were conditionally discharged at least once during the observation period were included in the sample (N = 1,367). These individuals were involved in 2,920 disposition hearings; nearly one-third of patients (30%) were re-hospitalized after having been conditionally discharged by the Review Board. The factors examined included the scales of the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 and salient behavior that occurred since the previous hearing, such as substance use or violence. The greater presence of clinical items resulted in a greater likelihood of a hospital detention decision at the next hearing. The effect was larger for the re-hospitalized group than for the group who successfully remained in the community since the last hearing. The results suggest that dynamic factors, specifically indicators of mental health, are heavily weighted by the Review Boards, consistent with the literature on imminent risk and in line with the NCRMD legislation. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".