Social and recovery capital amongst homeless hostel residents who use drugs and alcohol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Homeless people who use drugs and alcohol have been described as one of the most marginalised groups in society. In this paper, we explore the relationships of homeless drug and alcohol users who live in hostels in order to ascertain the nature and extent of their social and recovery capital. METHODS: Data were collected during 2013 and 2014 from three hostels. Each hostel was in a different English city and varied in size and organisational structure. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 residents (21 men; 9 women) who self-reported current drink and/or drug problems. Follow-up interviews were completed after 4-6 weeks with 22 residents (16 men; 6 women). Audio recordings of all interviews were transcribed verbatim, systematically coded and analysed using Framework. RESULTS: Participants' main relationships involved family members, professionals, other hostel residents, friends outside of hostels, current and former partners, and enemies. Social networks were relatively small, but based on diverse forms of, often reciprocal, practical and emotional support, encompassing protection, companionship, and love. The extent to which participants' contacts provided a stable source of social capital over time was, nonetheless, uncertain. Hostel residents who used drugs and alcohol welcomed and valued interaction with, and assistance from, hostel staff; women appeared to have larger social networks than men; and hostels varied in the level of enmity between residents and antipathy towards staff. CONCLUSION: Homeless hostel residents who use drugs and alcohol have various opportunities for building social capital that can in turn foster recovery capital. Therapies that focus on promoting positive social networks amongst people experiencing addiction seem to offer a valuable way of working with homeless hostel residents who use drugs and alcohol. Gains are, however, likely to be maximised where hostel management and staff are supportive of, and actively engage with, therapy delivery.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".