STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS: NARRATIVE PRACTICES IN SUPPORT OF FRONTLINE COMMUNITY WORK WITH HOMELESSNESS, MENTAL HEALTH, AND SUBSTANCE USE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of starting a Housing First Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team, the authors describe their use of Narrative Therapy and Narrative Practices while working alongside individuals facing problems with homelessness, mental health challenges, and substance use. As many front line community workers responding to such problems are not trained counsellors, the authors provide an overview to Narrative Therapy, its key concepts, and how workers might use Narrative Practices as a non-expert, anti-oppressive, and social justice response. To illustrate the concepts and how they translate into everyday conversations with workers, Roy, a participant of the ACT program, shares his story of resistance to the influences of stigma and substances. Roy also offers a reflection on this paper. Practice questions are suggested to support alternative story development, and the relevance for child, youth, and family work is suggested.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".