Research With Women Who Use Drugs: Applying a Trauma-informed Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women who use drugs (WWUD) experience high rates of trauma. The complex impacts of trauma can act as a barrier to accessing substance use and harm reduction services, and to participation and representation within substance use research. Trauma-informed practice is an evidence-based approach for improved clinical care among WWUD, the principles of which can be applied to substance use research. Many researchers are integrating trauma-informed approaches across research settings, yet these principles are often not referenced specifically within publications, and there is a lack of comprehensive guidance regarding integration of trauma-informed methods across different research designs and methodologies. This commentary describes and discusses the merits of applying the 4 principles of trauma-informed practice - trauma awareness, safety and trustworthiness, choice collaboration and connection, and strengths-based and skills building - to promote safety and inclusion of WWUD in substance use research.
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 | 0.307 | 0.260 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".