Mental Illness and Public Authority: A Rights-Based Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project explores the intersection between mental illness, public authority, and human and constitutional rights. The project has two main aims. The first is to formulate a general legal framework that regulates the relationship between state power and mentally ill persons. After observing the inhuman and degrading history of this relationship, this project delineates the way in which human and constitutional rights compel public authorities to both refrain from interfering with the rights of mentally ill persons and to take affirmative steps to protect their rights. This project explores how these obligations constrain both legislative and administrative authority. The second is to apply this framework to the situation in Ethiopia. The failure of the Ethiopian state to enact mental health legislation has resulted in a system in which administrative actors make decisions impacting rights in the absence of legal constraint or judicial oversight. I argue that Ethiopia must take immediate action to safeguard the rights of individuals with mental illness. A mental health act, robust administrative law principles, and meaningful judicial oversight are essential if the rights of individuals with mental illnesses are to be respected, protected, and fulfilled.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".