Educating Canadian jurors about the not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder defence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated the prevalence of negative attitudes toward the insanity defence in the United States, but attitudes toward the not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) defence in Canada have yet to be examined. Two studies investigated whether educating mock jurors about the NCRMD defence would change their attitudes toward the defence and verdict decisions. We also investigated potential differences between student and community samples in such cases. In Study 1, we found that educating jurors about the NCRMD defence led to more positive attitudes toward the defence, but it did not affect verdicts. In Study 2, we found no effect of NCRMD education on attitudes or verdict decisions. Results did reveal an effect of sample type on the 'injustice and danger' dimension of NCRMD attitudes, such that students had more positive attitudes toward the defence than did community members. Verdicts did not vary as a function of sample type, suggesting that students may be an acceptable proxy for mock jurors in these types of studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".