Identity in recovery from problematic alcohol use: A qualitative study of online mutual aid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore how engagement with online mutual aid facilitates recovery from problematic alcohol use, focusing on identity construction processes. DESIGN: Qualitative in-depth interview study of a maximum variation sample. SETTING: Telephone interviews with UK-based users of Soberistas, an online mutual aid group for people who are trying to resolve their problematic alcohol use. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one members, ex-members and browsers of Soberistas (25 women, 6 men): seven currently drinking, the remainder with varying lengths of sobriety (two weeks to five years). FINDINGS: Three key stages of engagement were identified: 1) 'Lurking' tended to occur early in participants' recovery journeys, where they were keen to maintain a degree of secrecy about their problematic alcohol use, but desired support from likeminded people. 2) Actively 'participating' on the site and creating accountability with other members often reflected an offline commitment to make changes in drinking behaviour. 3) 'Leading' was typically reserved for those securely alcohol-free and demonstrated a long-standing commitment to Soberistas; leaders described a sense of duty to give back to newer members in early recovery and many reported an authentic identity, defined by honesty, both on- and off-line. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement with online mutual aid might support recovery by affording users the opportunity to construct and adjust their identities in relation to their problematic alcohol use; individuals can use the parameters of being online to protect their identity, but also as a mechanism to change and consolidate their offline alcohol-related identity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".