MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Substance Abuse and Slow-Motion Disasters: The Case of Detroit

2009· article· en· W2077926274 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnited States Drug Enforcement Administration
KeywordsCriminologySociologyCriticismCausality (physics)Political scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractIn this article, I focus on problem substance use as one outcome of an underlying, "slow-motion disaster" caused by the long-term collision between corrosive structural processes, counterproductive social policies, and vulnerable populations. Using the city of Detroit as an illustration, I offer an original conceptual model for linking the causes and cascading consequences of slow-motion disasters. This model highlights the embedded connections between structural factors, such as racial segregation and systemic unemployment, and multiple destructive outcomes, including health and crime disparities, as well as problem substance use. Finally, I conclude that sociological researchers must engage with broader publics and diverse coalitions if they are to contribute to an alternative social policy—a holistic, regional "disaster response"—that takes multiple layers of causality into account, and addresses the core of vulnerabilities that make such disasters possible. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis paper was first presented at the Society for the Study of Social Problems 2006 Annual Meeting in Montreal, Quebec. I would like to thank Christopher Caudill, James Gruber and Lars Bjorn for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts. Andrew Golub, Pamela Aronson, Lora Lempert, Dan Little, Kurt Metzger, Sandro Galea and Juliette Roddy also offered input at various stages, and Christina Gabrielli and Jennifer Zerweck provided assistance in proofreading the manuscript. Finally, I would like to thank the reviewers and editors at The Sociological Quarterly for their thoughtful criticism.Notes

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.338 · 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