Trajectories and Outcomes of Those Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder through a Canadian Forensic System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadians adjudicated Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCR) are detained in forensic psychiatric hospitals under a jurisdictional review board (RB) governed by the Canadian Criminal Code. The custody and management of NCR populations are administered independently across jurisdictions despite being federally legislated, and research is limited on how RBs may vary in their efforts to balance public safety and social reintegration across cases, settings, and provinces. To this end, the trajectories and outcomes were investigated in one understudied Canadian RB system on a sample of NCR individuals ( n = 109) and compared to other provincial practices. A retrospective longitudinal design was employed to track an NCR cohort between 2005 and 2010 until 2015. Results demonstrated that the provincial RB aligned their operational and management practices with federal legislation, but unique deviations contributed to novel NCR trajectories and outcomes under RB supervision that were conservative relative to provincial partners. Dispositions varied as a function of risk level and were informed by clinician recommendations. Detention length differences were observed between ancestral lines, as the White ancestral group spent an average of three years less in custody than the Nonwhite ancestral group despite limited differences in demographic, clinical, and criminogenic profiles. Further research is required on NCR trajectories and outcomes across other understudied provinces and the role of forensic risk instruments in assisting with the consistent application of federal law.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".