MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048069069 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12340057

Mental Health and Suicide: At the Crossroad of a Static Law

2020· article· en· W3048069069 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Titilayo Aderibigbe

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthLawGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Political scienceMental health lawMental illnessMental Health ActCriminologySociologyPsychiatryPsychologyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Historically, mental health has been clothed in secrecy in Nigeria. The mentally ill were sequestrated, disregarding their rights. Often victimized, they become suicidal without societal empathy and legal protection. Mental health law remains static, a Colonial legacy. Changing needs of society, socio-economic vicissitudes/depression affected the mental state of many Nigerians, which subsequently drove some to attempt suicide. Under the moribund Lunacy Act 1958, the Criminal and Penal Codes 2004, attempted suicide is criminalised, further exacerbating the psychological state of the suicidal. Government is reluctant to amend the Lunacy Act, along extant societal reality. This article examines the historical and social antecedents of the Lunacy Act, its relevance to mental healthcare; the socio-cultural factors impeding its amendment; and the Mental Health Act Bill. It concludes that these laws do not secure constitutionally guaranteed social responsibility of government. Nigeria has reached a crossroad. Citizens must demand that Government ensure reform of the mental health law.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207