You just have to have other models, our DNA is different: the experiences of indigenous people who use illicit drugs and/or alcohol accessing substance use treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In Canada, and elsewhere, indigenous peoples who use illicit drugs and/or alcohol (IPWUID/A) commonly experience vulnerability and a disproportionate burden of harm related to substance use. In Vancouver, Canada, there are concerns that inequitable access, retention, and post treatment care within substance use treatment programs may exacerbate these harms. This study sought to understand the policies and practices with the potential to produce inequities and vulnerabilities for IPWUID/A in substance use treatment, situate the vulnerabilities of IPWUID/A in substance use treatment within the context of wider structural vulnerability of IPWUID/A, and generate recommendations for culturally safe treatment options. METHODS: This research employed a qualitative indigenous-led community-based approach using the indigenous methodology of talking circles to explore experiences with substance use treatment. Under the participatory research framework, community researchers led the study design, data collection, and analysis. Talking circles elicited peers' experiences of substance use treatment and were audio-recorded and transcribed. RESULTS: The talking circles identified three key themes that illustrated the experiences of IPWUID/A when accessing substance use treatment: (a) barriers to accessing detox and substance use treatment; (b) incompatible and culturally inappropriate structure, policies, and procedures within treatment programs, such as forced Christianity within treatment settings; and (c) the importance of culturally relevant, peer-led substance use treatment programming. DISCUSSION: Our work demonstrates that some IPWUID/A have limited access to or retention in mainstream treatment due to excessive waiting times, strict rules, and lack of cultural appropriate care while in treatment. However, IPWUID/A narratives revealed strategies that can improve IPWUID/A access and experiences, including those informed by the diverse perspectives of IPWUID/A and those that include trauma-informed and culturally safe practices.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".