MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993336473 · doi:10.3109/16066359.2014.942295

Addiction and the adaptive cycle: A new focus

2014· article· en· W1993336473 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Randle, Mirella L. Stroink, Connie Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction Research & Theory · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAddictionPsychologyFunction (biology)PhenomenonStability (learning theory)Cognitive psychologyPsychological interventionComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)NeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceBiologyPsychiatryMachine learningControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores addiction through the lens of complex adaptive systems theory, as an emergent, non-linear phenomenon that undergoes cyclical patterns of stability and change. Particularly, an addiction is a behavioural pattern that emerges through the dynamic interactions of numerous variables operating both within the individual and in the environment. Furthermore, we argue that an addiction moves through the four phases of the adaptive cycle and exists at a given scale nested within a panarchy of other complex systems. Each of these complex adaptive systems is moving through its own adaptive cycle at faster and slower rates, affecting the course of addiction in various ways. We conclude this work by suggesting that forthcoming addiction interventions and research may benefit from the consideration that addiction is a function of three separate, but related, adaptive cycles; the addiction cycle itself; a transitory cycle, and a final cycle in which the individual is actively responsible for the maintenance of his or her own recovery.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.020
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddiction Research & TheorySame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207