MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623091333

Advocating for Persons with Mental Health Problems: Living Up to the Challenges of the Twenty First Century-Chapter 10 in "Law and Mind: Mental Health Law and Policy in Canada"

2016· article· en· W2623091333 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H. Archibald Kaiser

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge@SchulichLaw · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental health lawMental healthDignityHealth lawTherapeutic jurisprudenceLawHealth policyPolitical scienceHealth careSociologyCriminologyPsychologyPsychiatryInternational health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health issues pose critical challenges for Canada's systems of justice and health care. Problems with mental health are common, but often neglected due to stigma and the vulnerability of those living with these conditions. This is evident within our legal system. Every day in our courts we see played out the struggle to protect the human rights and dignity of individual Canadians with mental health challenges, to access adequate mental health care and social support, and to provide genuinely helpful responses to criminal behaviour associated with mental health problems. Law and Mind: Mental Health Law and Policy in Canada provides a comprehensive analysis of the most important cases and key debates at the intersection of mental health law and policy. Written by a group of Canada's leading experts on mental health law, this volume provides practitioners, researchers and policy-makers with valuable insight into this challenging and important area of the law.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0410.034
Scholarly communication0.0190.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0130.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge@SchulichLawSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207