How Can Sociological Theory Help Our Understanding of Addictions?
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
Those who work in the addiction field usually use the pharmacological or medical model, psychological theories of behavior, or operate within the confines of a criminal justice perspective. Contributions from the field of sociology are limited to use of the methods of sociological investigations, primarily population surveys, which, typically, are used to identify groups at-risk for specific types of drug use. Surveys have identified illicit drug use as, predominantly, a problem of young males, whereas prescription drug use is predominantly a problem of middle-aged and older women in industrialized countries. Experts in addiction have accused sociologists who study addiction of being "atheoretical." Paradoxically, in the sociology field, the most highly cited article is Merton's theory of addiction. This article will examine the contributions of sociological theory to our understanding of addiction, including social definitions of "the problem of addiction" and mechanisms to account for individual drug use within a social context that defines it as problematic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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