Recovered, in Recovery or Recovering from Substance Abuse? A Question of Identity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has always been widespread debate on how people with past substance abuse problems choose to identify themselves with regards to their recovery and the terms used to associate with that identity. Most of the disagreement over these terms is rooted on whether recovery is seen as an ongoing process ("recovering" or "in recovery") or a life event that can be mastered ("recovered"). This article discusses these three controversial terms and attempts to make them available as terms that one can use or identify with by presenting different perspectives on the topic of recovery. Some of these perspectives may be unconventional when compared to traditional views of the recovery process, but they are the realities of many individuals who have had a past experience with substance abuse and may be confronted with prejudice when voicing their recovery in a past tense. The article makes comparisons between the DSM IV and the Big Book of AA and discusses identity vs labels and the influence of the medical community on this controversial topic.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it