Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Indigenous peoples with disabilities are extremely vulnerable when interacting with Canadian mental capacity law. They are disproportionately at risk of experiencing barriers to accessing justice, undermining their cultural values and Charter-protected rights of autonomy, medical selfdetermination and equality. There is a dearth of research addressing the values underlying supported decision-making and substitute decisionmaking for Indigenous communities in Canada. This chapter analyses the legal framing of mental capacity in Canada and the values and principles that are relevant for Indigenous peoples in Canada. I highlight the significant perspectives of Indigenous peoples in the framing of capacity and the types of intersectional barriers they experience accessing equitable decision-making processes in capacity law. The analysis reveals how Indigenous peoples with disabilities are isolated and denied autonomy. Their participation is curtailed as a result of lack of access to culturally appropriate treatment and systemic discrimination. Three broad questions are examined: 1. Does the law seek to identify and give effect to the values of Indigenous peoples with disabilities and if not, whose/what values are prioritised? 2. Does the law provide the participation of Indigenous peoples in decision-making? 3. Are Indigenous values embedded within the legal framing/principles of capacity law? Before addressing those questions, this chapter gives a brief overview of the approaches to mental health and mental capacity law in Canadian provinces and territories. It pays particular attention to British Columbia – a jurisdiction widely regarded as progressive on account of its supported decision-making legislation. Overview of legislative framing: supported decision-making in Canada Canada has ten provinces and three territories, each a legally distinct jurisdiction. Legislation addressing mental health capacity and competency in Canada is dealt with differently in every province and territory. A number of Canadian jurisdictions have included supported decision-making in their legislation, such as British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There are also a number of jurisdictions which rely on more informal supported decision-making processes. Canada signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) on 30 March 2007, and ratified it on 11 March 2010.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".