Did Somebody Say Community? Young Peopleâs Critiques of Conventional Community Narratives in the Context of a Local Drug Scene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The language of community is ubiquitous in academic, public health, and policy discourse about drug using populations. Yet, it has been argued that in some settings, the parameters of âthe drug user communityâ are far from self-evident. We undertook this ethnographic investigation to explore experiences and understandings of a âdrug user communityâ (sometimes referred to more specifically as a âstreet youth communityâ) among young people entrenched in Vancouverâs inner city drug scene. Our findings revealed that in this context, conventional notions of communityâthat is, a social network characterized by commonality, mutual responsibility, solidarity, and/or stabilityâresonated with some youth. However, most questioned the value of membership within this community, in which what they had in common with other youth were ongoing experiences of poverty, marginalization, and social exclusion. Many felt membership in the drug user community precluded their ability to be responsible and productive citizens within the wider community of âmainstream society.â Experiences of resource deprivation and everyday violence on the streets led many participants to emphasize the limited possibilities for community among their peers. We argue that it is important to critically examine heretofore essentializing assumptions about the nature of inner city drug user or street youth communities in order to better understand young peopleâs needs and desires in these settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".