MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410706152 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2025.27583

Reintegration After Incarceration for People with Mental Illness: A Pilot Community Mental Health Bridging Service

2025· article· en· W4410706152 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Roland M. Jones, Kiran Klaus Patel, Alexander I. F. Simpson, Cory Gerritsen, Tanya Connors, Tania Saccoccio, Treena Wilkie

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsCARE CanadaThe Wilson CentreGovernment of OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthAssertive community treatmentMental illnessMedicineStigma (botany)PsychiatryNursingSubstance abuseIntervention (counseling)Service (business)PopulationBusinessEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of serious mental illness in correctional facilities is approximately eight times higher than in the general population. The difficulties experienced by people with serious mental illness and correctional involvement are often compounded by substance abuse, homelessness, lack of support and stigma. While psychiatric treatment is provided in custody, rapid access to mental health services upon release is essential to ensure continuity of prescribed medications, monitoring and support in areas such as finances and housing. However, there are barriers to accessing services upon release, resulting in high rates of return to custody. In addition, there is a shortage of community psychiatrists and often long waiting lists for assertive community treatment teams. In this paper, we describe the development of an innovative community service to fill this gap. For the past 10 years, the Forensic Early Intervention Service (FEIS) has provided mental health consultation and case management services within two correctional centres in Toronto. The service has now been expanded into the community to provide continuity of care for individuals released from custody who otherwise have no existing mental health service provider. We describe the structure of the new service and the gap it seeks to fill.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207