Running to Recovery: A Carnal Sociologically Inspired Study of Change in Substance Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation represents an embodied investigation of the experiences of those who have integrated running into addiction recovery processes. This ethnographically inspired study, conducted in Vancouver (Canada), combines a carnal sociological framework with mobile interviews. Thus, the researcher's body served as a research tool, and the semi-directed interviews (n=22) were conducted while running with the participants. Wacquant's (2015) Six S properties served as conceptual categories for the deductive analysis of corporal experiences, namely: 1) skills; 2) suffering; 3) sentient; 4) situated; 5) symbolic; and 6) sedimented. This dissertation is comprised of three articles: 1) The first article provides a scoping review on the role of the body in social work literature; 2) The second article focuses on the methodological considerations stemming from the use of running interviews within a carnal sociological theorical framework; and 3) The final article, which is empirical, presents the findings of this study, emphasizing the significance of running in the participants' recovery process and the role of habitus in this context (Bourdieu, 1978). Finally, the dissertation concludes with a discussion that addresses: 1) the tensions between deviant and athletic bodies, and the place of this research between them; 2) considerations for running-based psychosocial interventions; and 3) implications for the discipline of social work.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".