Accurate yet problematic: the divided sentiments regarding brain-based addiction by professionals in the Finnish service system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is an ongoing debate regarding the value and applicability of brain-based understandings of addiction. This study examines how professionals in the Finnish addiction service system view this matter.Methods The study participants (n = 997) were recruited at different levels of policy-making, treatment, prevention work, education, administration and research. We created an online questionnaire containing both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed.Results There was a broad agreement among survey participants regarding the relevance and importance of brain-based understandings, per se. The support seemed to have increased a great deal in the past decades. On a closer view, a dichotomous attitude prevailed among the respondents: They expressed robust support for etiologies and ontologies of brain-based addiction, but simultaneously acknowledged some greater risks with neurocentrism and with wider implementations of neuroscientifically based interventions. New divisions of responsibility and the weakening of rights among concerned parties were presented as risk scenarios. The respondents feared that a medicalization of addiction would sideline social approaches.Conclusion The Finnish addiction service professionals were not prepared to let brain-based ideas of addiction guide the country’s addiction services but saw them as a useful supplementary hermeneutic and pedagogic tool.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".