Fragmented Law & Fragmented Lives: Canada’s Mental Health Care System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the role of law in shaping Canada’s mental health care system and perpetuating failed policy choices, leading to serious access problems for those in need of mental health care. We begin with a general discussion of the funding of Canada’s mental health care system, focusing on a lack of universal coverage for psychological counseling, prescription drugs, home care and other community supports. Next we examine how the law, particularly the present practice in interpreting the constitutional division of powers, impacts the funding of mental health services and supports a fragmented delivery system. We then review gaps in the delivery of primary care services (including prescription drugs), hospital services and community care services. We also discuss particular failings in our present system for the treatment of children with mental health care needs. Having traced the legal underpinnings for the fragmentation of Canadian mental health services, we end by exploring how law (both in terms of law reform and litigation) could play a more positive role in improving the Canadian mental health care system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".