Personal strengths and resources that people use in their recovery from persistent substance use disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The concept of recovery capital refers to the sum of resources that a person has available to initiate and continue a recovery process. This concept has not been greatly explored with people with persistent substance use disorder (SUD), whose recovery is often quite long.Method We conducted 19 qualitative interviews with 19 people (9 men, 10 women) with persistent SUD to understand the personal strengths they use in their recovery. A gender-differentiated thematic analysis of the transcripts was conducted.Findings The analysis paints a portrait of people who, despite their difficulties, managed to use their skills and develop new ones to confront their problems: introspection, perseverance, self-belief, knowledge about recovery, etc. For women in particular, the ability to assert themselves appears to have been a survival tool in their trajectory. For most of the participants, material and financial resources were most lacking in their recovery process. Faced with a precarious financial situation, several women spoke of the need to get organized and be proactive in finding ways to support themselves.Conclusion Contrary to a deficit-focused perspective, the concept of recovery capital leads us to focus on what is going well in these people’s lives.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".