Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a paucity of research on forensic psychiatry patients from Nunavut, including no published data concerning the prevalence and characterisation of patients in this territory. The lack of basic information hinders the evaluation of services and establishing best practices. The current paper aims to characterise forensic psychiatry patients from Nunavut and further the understanding of the challenges in organising forensic psychiatry healthcare in Nunavut. A retrospective chart review design was used to examine individuals from Nunavut who are engaged with the Ontario forensic psychiatry system. The sample included all Unfit to Stand Trial (26.7%) and Not Criminally Responsible (73.3%) patients (N = 15) under the jurisdiction of the Nunavut Review Board in a one-year period. The average distance between the patient’s place of residence in Nunavut and the Ontario facilities was 2,517 km. Overall, 26.7% were living in Nunavut, 60.0% remained in Ontario, and 13.3% resided in Alberta. Results are presented for sociodemographics, forensic status, personal and familial history, psychiatric and criminal history, diagnoses, index offence characteristics, treatment, assessment tools, and aggression. The prevalence and many characteristics of forensic psychiatry patients from Nunavut differ from the rest of Canada and have important implications for the delivery of services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".