Telepsychiatry and mental health equity in correctional facilities: Legal opportunities and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lack of access to mental health care in Canadian correctional facilities is a serious and longstanding issue. Telepsychiatry, which entails the usage of information and communications technologies to provide remote mental health care to patients, has been demonstrated to be an effective model of mental health care provision in correctional facilities. The right to health care, including mental health care, of inmates is recognized in both international and domestic law. However, mental health conditions remain suboptimal in Canadian correctional facilities and are far below the standards which exist in the general community, leading to significant mental health disparities for inmates. Telepsychiatry can be viewed as a vector for increasing mental health equity in the correctional system and provides a promising opportunity for correctional facilities to meet their legal obligations to provide inmates with health care, including mental health care. This article explores the legal frameworks governing the provision of mental health care services in Canadian correctional facilities and highlights the role telepsychiatry can play in the fulfillment of these legal frameworks. It also explores the legal challenges facing the implementation of telepsychiatry in correctional facilities. Ultimately, despite these challenges, it argues that telepsychiatry should be more widely implemented in correctional facilities to ensure mental health equity for inmates.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".