MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552289267 · doi:10.1186/s12914-016-0103-1

Is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Impacting Mental Health Laws and Policies in High-Income Countries? A Case Study of Implementation in Canada

2016· editorial· en· W2552289267 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Steven J. Hoffman, Lathika Sritharan, Ali Tejpar

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC International Health and Human Rights · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNorges ForskningsrådPierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
KeywordsConvention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesPublic healthMental healthPolitical scienceConventionLawHuman rightsEnvironmental healthMedicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Persons with psychosocial disabilities face disparate access to healthcare and social services worldwide, along with systemic discrimination, structural inequalities, and widespread human rights abuses. Accordingly, many people have looked to international human rights law to help address mental health challenges. On December 13, 2006, the United Nations formally adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) - the first human rights treaty of the 21st century and the fastest ever negotiated. METHODS: This study assesses the CRPD's potential impact on mental health systems and presents a legal and public policy analysis of its implementation in one high-income country: Canada. As part of this analysis, a critical review was undertaken of the CRPD's implementation in Canadian legislation, public policy, and jurisprudence related to mental health. RESULTS: While the Convention is clearly an important step forward, there remains a divide, even in Canada, between the Convention's goals and the experiences of Canadians with disabilities. Its implementation is perhaps hindered most by Canada's reservations to Article 12 of the CRPD on legal capacity for persons with psychosocial disabilities. The overseeing CRPD Committee has stated that Article 12 only permits "supported decision-making" regimes, yet most Canadian jurisdictions maintain their "substitute decision-making" regimes. This means that many Canadians with mental health challenges continue to be denied legal capacity to make decisions related to their healthcare, housing, and finances. But changes are afoot: new legislation has been introduced in different jurisdictions across the country, and recent court decisions have started to push policymakers in this direction. CONCLUSION: Despite the lack of explicit implementation, the CRPD has helped to facilitate a larger shift in social and cultural paradigms of mental health and disability in Canada. But ratification and passive implementation are not enough. Further efforts are needed to implement the CRPD's provisions and promote the equal enjoyment of human rights by all Canadian citizens - and presumably for all other people too, from the poorest to the wealthiest countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0510.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.391 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC International Health and Human RightsSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207