Peer Recovery Support Services in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substance use disorders are a global issue affecting millions of people, including Canadians. There are various forms of treatment, with Peer Recovery Support Services (PRSS) quickly gaining in popularity. PRSS are peer-based mentoring programs that provide encouragement and support to help individuals on their path to recovery. PRSS originated in the United States but have been adopted and adapted in many other countries and regions around the world (Puschner, 2018). In Canada, PRSS have gained in popularity through the promotion of peer support by the Mental Health Commission of Canada and Peer Support Canada. With the increasing recognition and utilization of PRSS in Canada, it is vital to determine the effectiveness of these services for people in recovery from substance use disorders. Moreover, it is critical to evaluate the economic impact of these services to determine whether PRSS could be integrated into a wide range of clinical settings (Elliott et al., 2021). Through a systematic review, current available information relating to PRSS in Canada will be reviewed in terms of services being offered, workforce development, as well as the economic impact of PRSS in this country. This review is complementary to a systematic review currently underway in the United States with the same goals and aims (similar to Bassuk et al., 2016).
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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".