Point prevalence of adults with intellectual developmental disorder in forensic psychiatric inpatient services in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant minority of people with Intellectual Developmental Disorder (IDD) may come into contact with the criminal justice system as a result of criminal behaviours, and many of these who are deemed Unfit to stand trial or Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) will be transferred to forensic psychiatric facilities. Although the perception is that the frequency is increasing, the exact number is unclear, prompting us to conduct a provisional survey of forensic facilities across the province of Ontario to determine (i) point prevalence of IDD and (ii) the characteristics of such individuals. Detainees with IDD were identified in forensic mental health facilities across the Province of Ontario, and information was collected regarding their demographics, characteristics of their index offence and length of stay. We calculated a point prevalence (December 2012) of 19%, and identified that individuals with IDD stayed, on average, longer in these facilities than their non-IDD peers. We argue for the need to set up a working group to begin to address forensic care pathways for adults with IDD
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".