Recovered addicts working in the addiction field: Pitfalls to substance abuse relapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1940s, due to a shortage of professional counselors, combined with the hope of rehabilitation for the addict, there grew a belief that the recovered alcoholic could be trained to enter the field of addiction treatment as a paraprofessional. These early stages of addiction treatment and the emergence of the recovered substance abuser as a counselor fostered a discussion in the role played by the paraprofessional. This discussion subsequently encouraged an accumulation of literature during the early stages of substance abuse treatment in North America, which later began to diminish as the field moved forward towards the twenty-first century. This paper reviews the literature to examine the perceived potential risks for relapse associated with recovered addicts working in the addictions field. Potential risks for relapse discussed are the ex-addict's motivation for entering the addiction field, personal help from self-help groups may be lost once in the field, over involvement with clients, over involvement with work, over identification with clients and the repercussions of relapse. The paper also addresses the limitations of the studies conducted to date, provides recommendations for further research and proposes that this topic be explored using a qualitative approach, so that recovered counselors can construct their own narratives.
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 | 0.027 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".