Access and Injustice: An Intersectionality-informed Analysis of Victorian Mental Health Policy in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of compulsion and restrictive interventions in mental health care has been linked to social factors including poverty and marginalization. Using an intersectionality-informed analysis of key Victorian mental health policy documents released over the past decade, we identified a consistent lack of attention to the role played by race, socioeconomic status, and other forms of marginalization in the increased likelihood of compulsory treatment. Although policymakers have strived to consider the role of social determinants in catalyzing or mitigating mental distress, this social framework is often displaced by a consistently dominant biomedical approach to mental illness, which emphasizes identifying diagnoses and providing clinical treatment. This paper critically examines the stated intentions of mental health policy in Victoria, Australia, and the recent recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria's mental health system. We found that policies and recommendations for reform tend to express an intention to decrease the use of compulsion and restrictive interventions. However, the assumption expressed in reforms is that compulsory treatment is the result of systematic failure to provide treatment through other less intrusive avenues, thus neglecting deliberate discussion and action on the intersecting social factors that directly contribute to compulsory treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".