Forensic psychiatry patients, services, and legislation in Nunavut and Greenland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circumpolar regions face unique challenges in establishing and maintaining mental health care systems, including forensic psychiatry services. The scarcity of data and lack of evidence concerning the forensic psychiatry patient (FPP) populations of Nunavut and Greenland exacerbates the challenges of informing best practices and healthcare planning. By comparing the prevalence of forensic psychiatry patients, the mental health care services, and the legislation in these two relatively similar but unique regions, insight may be gained that can help inform healthcare planning. This cross-sectional study includes all forensic psychiatry in- and outpatients in one year from Nunavut (2018) and on February 29, 2020, in Greenland. The Greenland sample (n = 93) was nearly four times larger than the Nunavut sample (n = 15) at the population level. Despite considerable differences in forensic legislation and service supply, the forensic psychiatry patients in the two areas share several similarities. A total of 87% (n = 13) in the Nunavut sample were diagnosed with a DSM-5 schizophrenia spectrum disorder or other psychotic disorder. In Greenland, 82% (n = 76) were diagnosed with an ICD-10 F2 diagnosis (schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders). Approximately 2/3 of the patients in both populations were diagnosed with substance use disorder, and 60% of the Nunavut FPP received long-acting antipsychotic injections versus 62% in Greenland. Nearly half of the FPPs in both populations had never been convicted prior to entering the forensic psychiatry system; Nunavut 45% versus Greenland 47%. A substantial proportion of Greenlandic FPPs were outpatients compared to Nunavut (83% versus 47%). This study is an essential first step toward describing a Model of Care for forensic psychiatry patients in circumpolar regions; furthermore, the clinical similarities between the two populations provide support for future joint Arctic research and the inclusion of artic forensic patients in international studies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".