Using A Harm Reduction Approach With Clients Who Have Alcohol/Drug Dependencies In A Spinal Cord Rehabilitation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dissatisfied with the frequently adversarial nature of relationships with clients who use alcohol or drugs while rehabilitation inpatients, and the often less than optimal outcomes for these individuals, the Spinal Cord Program at the G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Center in Vancouver, BC, decided to pilot a new approach. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the pilot project is to promote successful rehabilitation, including less conflict in rehabilitation, a completed rehabilitation program, and continued connection after discharge if needed. METHOD: A dedicated team was formed and trained to work with these clients using harm reduction principles. PARTICIPANTS: From its inception in December 2000, through May 2001, the team worked with 6 inpatients, 12% of admissions to the Spinal Cord Program during that period. RESULTS: Outcomes based on the above goals have been positive. There have been no discharges against a client's will or instances of significant conflict with the team. Several clients have returned to the center for assistance or to visit post-discharge. Only 1 client left rehabilitation prematurely.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".