MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W164300371

Harm-reduction activism: a case study of an unsanctioned user-run safe injection site.

2004· article· en· W164300371 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas Kerr, Megan Oleson, Evan Wood

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarm reductionGovernment (linguistics)DowntownHarmAction (physics)Closing (real estate)BusinessHarassmentPolitical sciencePublic relationsPublic administrationInternet privacyLawFinancePublic healthHistoryComputer scienceMedicineNursingArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the ongoing health crisis among injection drug users in Vancouver, Canada, there have been repeated calls for the establishment of safe injection sites (SISs) since the early 1990s. In April 2003, in response to a large-scale police crackdown and government inaction, a group of activists opened an unsanctioned SIS in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside (DTES). The 327 Carrall Street SIS operated for 181 days despite considerable police harassment and limited financial support. During the operation of the SIS, volunteers supervised over 3000 injections and demonstrated the feasibility of a user-run low-threshold SIS. The experience of the SIS provides valuable lessons for those seeking to advance the interests of injection drug users through community mobilization and direct action approaches. In this article, Thomas Kerr, Megan Oleson, and Evan Wood describe the events surrounding the establishment, operation, and closing of the unsanctioned SIS, and outline the lessons learned.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations28
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207