Book Review: Substance Abuse: Circles of Recovery: Self-Help Organizations for Addictions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,079 | 0,044 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».