Involuntary Detention and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: International Perspectives on Civil Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contents: Introduction: Introduction, Kate Diesfeld and Ian Freckelton. International Approaches: A therapeutic jurisprudence model for civil commitment, Bruce J. Winick Involuntary treatment: searching for principles, Genevra Richardson The rights of involuntarily admitted psychiatric patients: European developments, Johan Legemaate. Involuntary Detention of Those with Mental Illnesses: Where is the asylum?, Suzy Stevens Decision-making by psychiatrists about involuntary detention, Ruth Vine Choosing among options for compulsory care, John Dawson All locked up with nowhere to go: treatment refusal in the involuntarily hospitalized psychiatric population in Canada, Mona Gupta. Review of Involuntary Detention Decision-Making: The release of Judge Schreber in Saxony 1902: an historic example of modern decision-making about involuntary detention, Ian Freckelton Therapeutic potential in review of involuntary detention, Stephanie du Fresne Mental heath review tribunals, Elizabeth Perkins Patients' views of the mental health review tribunal procedure in England, Nicola Ferencz Discharge of restricted patients from special hospitals in England and Wales: law and practice, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff. Legal Criteria for Involuntary Detention of Those with Mental Illnesses: Involuntary detention decision-making, criteria and hearing procedures: an opportunity for therapeutic jurisprudence in action, Ian Freckelton Capacity and confinement when is detention not detention?, Peter Bartlett Insights on 'Insight': the impact of extra-legislative factors on decisions to discharge detained patients, Kate Diesfeld Involuntary detention of persons found not guilty of murder by reason of mental impairment or found unfit to stand trial: a new jurisprudence from Victoria, Ian Freckelton. Involuntary Outpatient Detention: Coerced community treatment: international trends and outcomes, Virginia Aldige' Hiday Mandated community treatment: the potential role of violence risk assessment, John Monahan A clinical perspective on involuntary outpatient treatment: efficacy and ethics, Alexander I.F. Simpson Rights issues in compulsory community treatment, Sylvia Bell. Intellectual Disabilities and Involuntary Detention: Throwing away the key: people with intellectual disability and involuntary detention, Kelley Johnson and Sue Tait New Zealand's intellectual disability (compulsory care) legislation, Warren J. Brookbanks Criteria for discharge of people with learning disabilities: a comparative analysis, Kate Diesfeld Bibliography Index.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".