Conflicting purposes: Guardianship law, mental health law and involuntary detentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Part 3 of British Columbia's Adult Guardianship Act provides a statutory framework for protecting adults who are abused or neglected and unable to seek support and assistance on their own. The legislation aligns with modern approaches to guardianship with its focus on providing support to vulnerable adults. This statute's philosophy is captured in guiding principles, which affirm the presumption of capability and stipulate that support and assistance must be provided in a minimally intrusive manner. However, there is a gap between the statute's guiding principles and the legislation's application in practice. This is exemplified by using involuntary detentions as a mechanism to protect vulnerable adults from harm. Currently, British Columbia's health authorities rely on sections 22 of the Mental Health Act and 59 of the Adult Guardianship Act for authority to involuntarily detain older adults with dementia without their consent. This article argues that this practice raises serious rights concerns and that the resulting gap between the statute's philosophy and its implementation is due to inadequate procedural protections and overlap between the Adult Guardianship Act and the Mental Health Act. The article examines these issues through an analysis of the legislation, a discussion of relevant literature and judicial consideration of the issues, and identification of relevant rights concerns. Recommendations are made about how to address the gap between the intended purpose of the legislation and current practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".