Clinical Services Addressing Violent Extremism: The Quebec Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The association of ideologically motivated violence with mental health disorders raises specific challenges for security agencies and clinical services. The aim of this paper is to describe the clientele of a specialized intervention program based in Montreal, Quebec, in terms of type of violent ideology and clinical presentation. We conducted a retrospective chart review of 156 individuals referred for violent extremism who received clinical services between 2016 and 2021. Univariate statistics were used to present a description of client sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Roughly a third of clients referred for violent extremism presented non-ideologically based violence (32.6%), followed by 31.4% affiliated with far-right extremist ideology and over a quarter (25.6%) holding extremist views on gender. Over a third of these individuals had a stress-related (35.7%) and/or mood and anxiety disorder (36.9%), followed by 28% with an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. The majority had some previous contact with mental health services. A significant number of clients displaying extremist discourses and/or actions needed psychiatric services but often failed to receive them because of the reluctance of clinicians to work with individuals perceived as high risk; in addition, individuals may be reluctant to engage in services perceived to be part of a socio-political system they reject. Specialized services are important as a means to provide mental health care to this group and also to develop knowledge and best practices for working with this clientele and provide consultation to mainstream mental health service providers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".