Challenging Involuntary Treatment and Confinement in Canada Through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) came into force in 2008. People with disabilities, including people with psychosocial disabilities, were instrumental to its development. Article 12 and Article 14 of the CRPD, which respectively affirm the universal legal capacity and right to liberty of persons with disabilities, were viewed as key victories by disability rights movements. These provisions are particularly important for people with psychosocial disabilities who are routinely subjected to human rights violations through psychiatric detainment and involuntary treatment authorized under domestic mental health legislation in many states. We aim to advance discourse surrounding the CRPD and its development by centring mad peoples’ voices and individuals with lived experience through a literature review and interviews with key disability rights advocates. Using Canada as a case study, we critically examine the implementation of the CRPD and the need to align mental health acts with our international human rights obligations. We argue that forced psychiatric interventions violate the rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities and cause inherent harm. There is an urgent need to move towards new paradigms of care that promote the dignity and autonomy of people with psychosocial disabilities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".