Between (Re)Habilitation and Security: A Critical Examination of Peer Work in Ottawa’s Supervised Consumption Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, I critically examine the roles and experiences of peer workers in Ottawa’s supervised consumption sites. Relying on qualitative interviews conducted with peer workers and nurses, this thesis argues that peer work programs within mainstream harm reduction initiatives — such as state-sanctioned supervised consumptions sites — ensnare peers in, rather than liberate them from, practices of governance and punishment that perpetuate the marginalization of drug users. Specifically, I show how peer workers are enlisted in the maintenance and enforcement of two competing and often incoherent logics: that of (re)habilitation, which endeavours to transform (ex-)drug users into particular kinds of subjects, and that of what I call the “security mindset,” which aims to produce social order through violence and punishment.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".