From Benzos to Berries: Treatment Offered at an Aboriginal Youth Solvent Abuse Treatment Centre Relays the Importance of Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First Nations and Inuit youth who abuse solvents are one of the most highly stigmatized substance-abusing groups in Canada. Drawing on a residential treatment response that is grounded in a culture-based model of resiliency, this article discusses the cultural implications for psychiatry's individualized approach to treating mental disorders. A systematic review of articles published in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry during the past decade, augmented with a review of Canadian and international literature, revealed a gap in understanding and practice between Western psychiatric disorder-based and Aboriginal culture-based approaches to treatment and healing from substance abuse and mental disorders. Differing conceptualizations of mental health and substance abuse are discussed from Western psychiatric and Aboriginal worldviews, with a focus on connection to self, community, and political context. Applying an Aboriginal method of knowledge translation-storytelling-experiences from front-line workers in a youth solvent abuse treatment centre relay the difficulties with applying Western responses to Aboriginal healing. This lends to a discussion of how psychiatry can capitalize on the growing debate regarding the role of culture in the treatment of Aboriginal youth who abuse solvents. There is significant need for culturally competent psychiatric research specific to diagnosing and treating First Nations and Inuit youth who abuse substances, including solvents. Such understanding for front-line psychiatrists is necessary to improve practice. A health promotion perspective may be a valuable beginning point for attaining this understanding, as it situates psychiatry's approach to treating mental disorders within the etiology for Aboriginal Peoples.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".