MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090131877 · doi:10.60082/0829-3929.1399

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Bill C-83, Solitary Confinement, and Mental Health

2020· article· en· W3090131877 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lydia Dobson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Social Policy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislaturePrisonMental healthPublic administrationOrder (exchange)Corporate governancePolitical scienceSightLawPsychologyPsychiatryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates the recently passed Bill C-83, which aims to reduce harms caused by segregating people with mental health issues. In order to assess the capacity of the Bill to support meaningful change, the history of mental health institutions and correctional facilities in Ontario is first explored, followed by an analysis of recent cases on segregation and mental health in the province. Next, legislative oversight for federal prisons and provincial jails is described, followed by an overview of ongoing reforms. Here, a distinction between federal prisons and provincial jails is made in order to explore the different legislation governing each of these spaces and the complexities that arise from multiple systems of governance. Finally, the practical implementation of Bill C-83 is considered within these legal frameworks, and the resultant consequences are suggested in light of academic research on prison law policy and reform.

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)0.009
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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.036
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and Social PolicySame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207