Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the evolution of the paradigm of recovery in addiction and its implications. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE and PsychInfo databases over the past 10 years and key references from the retrieved literature. FINDINGS: The historical evolution of the concept of recovery has been shaped by several driving forces, including consumer experience, the need to better define our treatment outcome and parallel elaboration of the concepts of health, quality of life, and chronic disorders. Similarities and differences with the concept of "recovery" in mental health and other biomedical fields are identified.The empirical basis is growing in support of various proposed attributions and features of recovery along with the temporal benchmarks involved. The various forms of recovery, such as "natural," "transformational," or "medication-assisted," describe a choice of pathways to a common goal.The management implications are far-reaching and call for system shifts from acute stabilization to sustained recovery, including the growth of alternative institutions, and roles complementary to mutual help. Tools for the sustenance of recovery, including educational kits, recovery workbooks, and e-recovery initiatives, are developing. CONCLUSIONS: Although first-person accounts of recovery abound, a more systematic empirical investigation of the concept has just begun, including demographic and cultural differences. Management implications are derived from the experience with other "mainstream" chronic disorders with treatment providing stabilization and initiation of recovery and a range of long-term resources becoming available to sustain it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".