Risk Factors in Reports for People found Not Criminally Responsible: Has Clinical Practice Kept Up with Evidence-Based Practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If someone cannot appreciate the nature/quality of their actions or know they were wrong, the Canadian Criminal Code requires they are found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD). In Canada, Review Boards (RBs) determine whether individuals found NCRMD receive an absolute discharge (released without conditions), conditional discharge (released with conditions), or custodial disposition (custody in hospital) based on their risk to public safety. To determine risk, RBs use reports written by the patient’s treatment team that should consider empirically-supported risk factors, including Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 items (Webster et al., 1997). Previous research concluded few HCR-20 items were mentioned in reports; however, report audience (RB vs. court) may have influenced findings. This study examines how often HCR-20 items were mentioned in reports sent to courts versus RBs for patients found NCRMD residing at a secure forensic facility. The necessity of maintaining public safety and the patient’s rights is discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".