Experiencing Seclusion in a Forensic Psychiatric Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In hospital settings, and especially in forensic psychiatric ones, restlessness, aggression, and even violence are familiar issues to healthcare workers. Under these circumstances, the need for restrictive measures (seclusion, mechanical/chemical restraints) is sometimes needed. Although such measures should be considered as exceptional interventions, they continue to be widespread in general, psychiatric, and forensic psychiatric settings. Although there is a great deal of literature on a myriad of issues associated with the use of seclusion, very little research has focused on the lived experience of the seclusion room in forensic psychiatric settings, whether from the patient's perspective or from the perspective of nursing staff responsible for these patients. Such an examination could help ameliorate the experience of secluded forensic psychiatric patients while informing nursing staff about the impacts of seclusion. This article reports the results of a federally funded qualitative, phenomenological research study conducted in a Canadian forensic psychiatric environment. Our results show that the "structure of place" matters for both patients who experience seclusion and nursing staff who work therapeutically in these settings. "Place" is irreducible to the physical "space" in which bodies find themselves; this study of place took into consideration the ways the lived body experiences seclusion and interrelates with others. Although there can be no doubt that many patients who experience seclusion are oftentimes objectively at risk, with a heightened potential to self-harm and to harm other inpatients and nursing staff as well, as our study participants attested, the bodies secluded in this space are not "objects."
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".