MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919374310

TREATMENT DELAYED - LIBERTY DENIED

2009· article· en· W2919374310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Solomon, Richard O’Reilly, John GrayandMartina Nikolic

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutonomyVictoryLawAnguishBalance (ability)Mental healthInvoluntary treatmentPolitical sciencePersonal autonomyPsychiatryPsychologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starson v. Swayze, and the Ontario law upon which it is based was hailed as a victory for psychiatric patients. However, by 2005, Starson had been involuntarily detained without treatment for nearly seven years and his deteriorating mental health had brought him close to death. While Starson’s psychiatrists wanted to treat him, the law prevented them from doing so. This paper analyzes the laws that ensnared Starson and others and proposes amendments to better protect seriously ill patients. We will demonstrate that in attempting to safeguard autonomy, the Ontario law imperils and physical and mental health of involuntary psychiatric patients, and often results in subjecting them to prolonged detention, mental anguish, physical and chemical restraint, and solitary confinement. A better balance needs to be struck among the competing interests of these patients. In striking this balance, consideration must be given to the law’s real-world impact on the lives and liberty of those it purports to protect.

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)0.004
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207