Comprehensiveness and Context of Psychiatric Reports Submitted to Review Boards in Cases of People Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research suggests that empirically validated risk factors for persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) are rarely mentioned by clinicians in reports for Review Boards in Canada. This study aims to better understand this observation by examining the styles of clinical reports (i.e., types of report according to their comprehensiveness and their content) and the contextual factors associated with them. To identify styles of reports, mentions of risk factors within reports were subjected to a series of latent class analyses. Regression analyses were then carried out to identify which contextual factors (characteristics related to the person found NCRMD, the timing of the report, and the clinical team/care setting) were significantly associated with the styles of reports. Findings revealed four styles of reports which were also correlated to contextual factors, some unrelated to the risk of violence and/or reoffending for the person found NCRMD. These results reinforce the need to implement evidence-based practices in forensic risk assessment and management.
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 | 0.015 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".