Le refus de soins psychiatrique est-il possible au Québec? Instrumentalisation du droit et mission thérapeutique de la justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le consentement libre et éclairé est le fondement juridique de toute décision de soins et la base de l’alliance thérapeutique. Les réformes civiles et criminelles des années 1990 visaient notamment la mise en œuvre du droit au consentement aux soins dans le cadre des mécanismes de droit psychiatrique afin de protéger les patients contre des décisions arbitraires. L’observation d’audiences d’autorisation de soins, de garde en établissement et de Commission d’examen démontre cependant que le traitement y fait l’objet de discussions récurrentes, de même que le style de vie et l’adhésion au paradigme psychiatrique. Ces constats empiriques permettent de remettre en question la possibilité de refuser des soins en psychiatrie, du moins pour les personnes faisant l’objet de procédures judiciaires. Il convient dès lors de s’intéresser à la médication psychiatrique en tant que modalité incontournable des rapports de pouvoir et des processus de domination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".