Reflexivity: Interviewing Women and Men Formerly Addicted to Drugs and/or Alcohol
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers how one researcher used reflexivity in two research projects. Qualitative research often involves a consideration of sensitive topics, one which may include research with individuals formerly addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. However, there is little in the literature that focuses directly on such experiences for researchers in this field; that is, a consideration of how a researcher might use reflectivity while interviewing those formerly addicted to substances. Exploring the following themes, I highlight how I reflected on the experiences that my participants (25 women and 25 men) revealed about their stories of their addiction and recovery processes: (1) my personal characteristics and my background work; (2) the importance of documenting power balance or power imbalance in my research; (3) documenting the unexpected; and (4) reflecting on the impact of my interviews/field notes.
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.
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 | 0.039 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it