MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2804321107 · doi:10.4172/2167-0358.1000103

Results of the Computerized Mental Health Screening System for Female Offenders

2013· article· en· W2804321107 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Socialomics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyComputer scienceData scienceMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To estimate the proportion of incoming female offenders in the Canadian federal correctional system requiring mental health services based on results of a Computerized Mental Health Intake Screening System (CoMHISS). Method: Consecutive admissions to the five regional women’s prisons in the Correctional Service of Canada were approached to consent to participate in the CoMHISS. The screening process combines two psychological self-report measures, the Brief Symptom Inventory, and the Depression Hopelessness and Suicide Screening Form. Results were analyzed based on the percentage of women who met established cut-off scores on the measures and further analyzed by Aboriginal ethnicity. Results: Sixty-two percent of the sample reported elevated levels of psychological distress that would warrant further assessment. Although higher for Aboriginal women, the mean scores did not differ significantly from those of non-Aboriginal women. The rate of co-occurring substance abuse among women reporting psychological distress was estimated at 70%. Conclusions: Planning for the delivery of mental health services for federally sentenced women should consider their high rates and variety of psychological problems. Specific correctional treatment planning requires attention to criminogenic needs as well as mental health issues and serious substance abuse problems. Mental health providers for women in prison should be aware of the significant likelihood of co-morbid substance abuse disorders and mental health problems and prepare women to identify follow up services to address these problems on release.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.903

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Socialomics→Same topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending→French-language works237,207→