MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808281296 · doi:10.15173/ijrr.v1i2.3562

Criminal court ordered assessments in France and Canada

2018· article· en· W2808281296 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sébastien Prat, Noëmie Praud, Lauren E. Barney

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Risk and Recovery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionForensic psychiatryForensic scienceCriminologyLawCriminal justicePolitical sciencePsychologyEconomic JusticeSociologyPsychiatryHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this Letter to the Editor, we aim to compare the Canadian and the French forensic psychiatry system. Comparing both systems is interesting because France is considered as one of the oldest modern justice systems, and many of the forensic concept are inherited from it or its European neighbours. On the other hand, Canada is one of the countries where the modern forensic psychiatry is born, implementing the actual scientific concepts of criminology. Although the overall goal of the Justicer system and Forensic Psychiatry is the same in both countries, the theoritecal and practical differences help each professional to reflect on their own practice in their jurisdiction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Risk and RecoverySame topicHistorical and Scientific StudiesFrench-language works237,207