Games of Truth: Rethinking Conformity and Resistance in Narratives of Heroin Recovery
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
ABSTRACT Conventional paradigms of drug treatment present addicts as liars, fabricators, and manipulators until they are truly involved in their recovery process. My ethnographic study engages with and expands upon Foucault's (1988 ———. 1988 The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom: An Interview . In The Final Foucault . J. Bernauer and D. Rasmussen , eds. Pp. 1 – 20 . Cambridge : The MIT Press . [Google Scholar]) concept of “games of truth” and De Certeau's (1984 De Certeau , M. 1984 The Practice of Everyday Life . Berkeley : University of California Press . [Google Scholar]) work on “strategies” and “tactics” to illuminate complex and shifting relations between and among staff and clients in a methadone clinic in Toronto, Canada. I suggest the notion of “complicity” in order to address radical instability in these relationships, and I also question commonly held binaries, such as truth and lies, enunciation and action, domination and resistance, that underlie theoretical and addiction treatment realms. In this process, I contribute not only to anthropological theorizing but also to policy making. The staff and clients' multifaceted interpretations of heroin recovery question a single standard of “successful” treatment and point to the need for broader social interventions to address the diverse needs of heroin users.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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