MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W266499193 · doi:10.1177/070674371506000308

The National Trajectory Project of Individuals Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder. Part 5: How Essential are Gender-Specific Forensic Psychiatric Services?

2015· article· en· W266499193 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tonia L. Nicholls, Anne G. Crocker, Michael C. Seto, Yanick Charette, Gilles Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-PinelUniversité du Québec à MontréalRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteBC Mental Health & Substance Use ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMental Health CommissionMcGill University
KeywordsPsychosocialMental healthPsychiatryCriminal justicePsychologyForensic psychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)MedicineClinical psychologyCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To state the sociodemographic characteristics, mental health histories, index offence characteristics, and criminal histories of male and female forensic psychiatric patients. Clinicians and researchers advocate that mental health and criminal justice organizations implement gender-specific services; however, few studies have sampled forensic patients to evaluate the extent to which men's and women's treatment and management needs are different. METHOD: Data were collected from Review Board files from May 2000 to April 2005 in the 3 largest Canadian provinces. Using official criminal records, participants were followed for 3 to 8 years, until December 2008. The final sample comprised 1800 individuals: 15.6% were women and 84.4% were men. RESULTS: There were few demographic differences, but women had higher psychosocial functioning than men. Both men and women had extensive mental health histories; women were more likely diagnosed with mood disorders and PDs and men were more likely diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and SUDs. The nature of the index offence did not differ by gender, except women were more likely to have perpetrated murders and attempted murders. For offences against a person, women were more likely to offend against offspring and partners and less likely to offend against strangers, compared with men. Women had significantly less extensive criminal histories than men. CONCLUSIONS: Not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder-accused women have a distinct psychosocial, clinical, and criminological profile from their male counterparts, which may suggest gender-specific assessment, risk management, and treatment in forensic services could benefit patients. The findings are also consistent with traditional models (Risk-Need-Responsivity) and ultimately demonstrate the importance of individual assessment and client-centred services.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207