MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6884736400 · doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.919

Criminal responsibility evaluations: Benchmarking in different countries

2023· article· en· W6884736400 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal responsibilitySanityMental healthInsanityAgency (philosophy)BenchmarkingPsycINFOMeaning (existential)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Forensic psychiatrists, as well as other mental health professionals, provide the legal system with clinical information and assessments concerning the offenders’ functioning, mental state and capacities at the time of the alleged offense and/or trial. These forensic assessments play a crucial role in court, influencing subsequent decision-making on sentencing, placement, or treatment of mentally disordered offenders. OBJECTIVES: Determining criminal responsibility at the time of arrest Exploring the role of psychiatric disposals in different countries. METHODS: The information was primarily gathered through written sources: peer review articles, reports, and legislation. A literature search was performed in PubMed and PsycINFO using the following keywords: criminal responsibility (reports/evaluations), pre-trial assessment,psychiatric expert, (forensic) psychiatric assessment, sanity evaluation and insanity defense. Additional articles were identified through reference lists This resulted in 36 peer review articles and nine reports or book chapters. In addition, a leading expert (i.c. psychiatrist) from every country was contacted for providing information and validating the information from this article pertaining to their country. They suggested eight more articles or book chapters. The respondents represent the authors of this article. RESULTS: See table. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, it appears that there are distinct differences between the abovementioned countries with respect to criminal responsibility assessments. Although Canada is considered a pioneer with regard to forensic mental health, Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden appear to have a well-established system in conducting these assessments. In Sweden the system is very strict, meaning that all reports are delivered by a governmental agency with their own staff. The court orders the report from the agency and not from the experts. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: None Declared

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0190.022
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207