Resisting Recovery Rhetoric: A Critical Discourse Analysis and Counter Perspectives from People With Substance Use Issues in Rural Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recovery concept informs research, policies, and practices related to mental health and substance use in Canada, which has consequences for people with substance use issues in rural areas. Although recovery is espoused as a personal journey with no “right” approach, dominant representations of recovery permeate public and private minds to (re)produce an ideal presumably urban-centered recovery, which may stigmatize people in rural communities. This qualitative, exploratory study draws on Foucauldian and intersectionality principles to examine power relations embedded in recovery discourse. A critical discourse analysis (CDA) using van Dijk’s Sociocognitive Approach (SCA) is applied to 40 semi-structured interviews with people who experience substance use issues in rural Ontario. Findings indicate that although dominant assumptions of substance use recovery are reinforced by people with lived experience in rural spaces, they are also rejected and resisted in ways that expose oppression, counter dominance, and promote more equitable alternatives.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".