MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1541238131 · doi:10.1177/070674370505000614

Book Review: Substance Abuse: Circles of Recovery: Self-Help Organizations for Addictions

2005· article· en· W1541238131 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Douglas H. Frayn

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensToronto Public Health
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAddictionReading (process)PsychologyTheme (computing)Substance abuseScope (computer science)Alcoholics AnonymousPsychiatrySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Substance Abuse Circles of Recovery: Self-Help Organizations for Addictions. Keith Humphreys. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2004. 228 p. US$25.00 Reviewer rating: Good This is a volume from the International Research Monographs in the Addictions series that presents both clinical and public health applications of biological, behavioural, and statistical addiction research. Keith Humphreys, from the Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University, Stanford, California, has written extensively about self-help groups and outcome research over the past decade. This small book attempts to list, describe, and integrate the literature on all the registered self-help addiction groups worldwide. Reading it is like reading a dictionary: it has interesting, but often unrelated, individual items. It is also a tough read, since there is no consistent theme and the groups described are frequently unconnected, as is common with reference texts. The book's scope is broad and provides a general introduction to numerous addictionrelated self-help groups. Humphreys' goal was to illustrate the range of societal involvement in chemical dependencies, along with professional and lay responses to the worldwide problem of addictions. However, the book sacrifices depth, which it might have achieved if Humphreys had focused on the largest such organization: Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Certain groups (for example, AA, Blue Cross, Narcotics Anonymous, and Links) see substance abuse as a physical, spiritual, and moral problem. Conversely, others such as Rational Recovery and SMART Recovery, view it as primarily an unhealthy behaviour problem. Global cross-cultural issues also exist, both in the type of intoxicants preferred and in the philosophy of therapy given. For instance, it is assumed that alcoholism is rare in Asian and Semitic populations, owing to genetics and to having close family structures that may make drinking physically unpleasant or unacceptable. That said, these populations are well represented in the use of other addictive drugs, and some individuals within them feel doubly excluded because of their community's disbelief that they could suffer from alcoholism. With regard to alcoholism, high rates of drinking can be found by measuring population consumption levels, but an even more accurate method is to assess the degree of liver cirrhosis (for example, Ireland, Scotland, and Italy, among other countries, have high rates). In most modern cities, however, it is the rule rather than the exception that, although over 10% of the general population abuse alcohol, people with addictions depend on multiple drugs. It is beyond the scope of this review to discuss all the different self-help addiction groups available, but it is sufficient to say that 50% are located in the US and 5% in Canada. Worldwide, AA alone has over 100 000 groups and 2 million members who attend regularly. It is estimated that 3 times this number have some contact with a group, without necessarily joining. What makes self-help groups so popular? Humans tend to gather together, accumulate resources, and solve shared threats. Most group members seek professional help; however, as with most chronic problems, it is not the acute problem that presents the major disability but the chronic, ongoing one. Physicians and self-help groups share something in common-mutual distrust! Some members have had bad experiences with conditioning and behavioural techniques as well as with newer medications that proved later to have abuse potential. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,079
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,264

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0060,005
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0790,044

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,248
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2005
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Même sujetSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→Travaux en français237 207→