Analyse critique des politiques de prestation des soins de santé mentale dans les centres de détention québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, approximately 6 000 Canadians caught with severe mental illness are held in penal institutions across the country. This high prevalence of psychiatric patients in prisons, which is substantially higher than in the general population, is reported to be in conjunction with multiple factors such as the clinical specificity of patients with mental disorders, the criminalization of people with mental health problems, the displacement theory and the changes brought to the Criminal code in the 1990s. We question whether or not the mode of mental health care delivery, specifically in the Quebec detention centers, is effective. By studying the normative framework supporting the provision of prison mental health care in Quebec, we observe that a legal quasi-gap is blatant on this subject. Moreover, the facts reported by the Ombudsman and the Coroner's Office are disturbing and reveal significant gaps in the current mode of delivery of psychiatric care in prison. This paper is meant to identify the underlying causes of the problems encountered in detention centers and to present recommendations in this respect, based on preexisting models of mental health care delivery in prisons which might be applicable in Quebec.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".