Empowering people with concurrent disorder in a clinical context: a structural perpective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concurrent Disorder (CD) is a nascent area of study relative to mental health and addiction. Conceptions of effective treatment and desirable outcomes in the field remain contested. In my examination of CD literature, most researchers concluded the preferable outcomes of treatment to be a reduction or cessation of mental health symptoms and abstinence from substance use. The preferences of people with CD were largely absent in the literature review I conducted. The dissonance between CD literature and my structural social work values prompted me to adopt an empowerment lens for my practicum. Empowerment is defined in this report from a structural perspective. Structurally informed empowerment acknowledges that systematic discrimination is a factor precluding people with CD from living as they desire. In a clinical setting, the reduction of adverse effects from CD and oppression are the most prevalent forms of empowerment. Empowerment in a clinical context is aided by utilizing the recovery movement in determining what people define as a meaningful life recovery from CD is possible with the continued presence of mental health symptoms and substance use. Shared decision making (SDM), harm reduction, personal medicine, and treatment modalities are possible empowering clinical methods to enact a person's vision of recovery. Common needs for the increased well-being of people with CD were ascertained through dialogue and observation at the practicum site. Resources to contribute to fulfilling many of the needs were available in Prince George, British Columbia, yet knowledge of their existence is often esoteric. Social workers in the clinical context are able to address many of the needs in micro and mezzo capacities. --Leaf i.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".