âAbout Nothing Without Usâ: A Comparative Analysis of Autonomous Organizing Among People Who Use Drugs and Psychiatrized Groups in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A growing body of literature demonstrates the value of autonomous organizations of people who use drugs (PUD) in education, mutual support, and policy debates.Simultaneously, over the past 10 years, Canada has witnessed increased emphasis on what is generally termed (service) user involvement in public health, particularly among PUD and/or psychiatrizatized groups.Paralleling the development of autonomous organizations of PUD in relation to independent groups by and for various psychiatrized constituencies, this article traces the history of Canadian drug/service user organizing with an overt focus on structural barriers, suggesting that the psychiatric survivor and mad movements have served as critical organizing models among PUD.Methods: Drawing from a comparative review of psychiatric survivor/mad initiatives and organizations of PUD, in tandem with observations from the author's cumulative ethnographic field research, this paper conducts a critique of how PUD are positioned in Canadian drug policy.Results: Despite popular perceptions regarding Canada's embrace of harm reduction, recent political shifts have indicated both a clear regression to moral-criminological approaches closely aligned with the U.S. "war on drugs," and the persistence of structural barriers among Canadian PUD.Conclusion: Drawing from evidencedbased research concerning peer-based forms of harm reduction, this paper argues for the fundamental centrality of autonomous organizations by and for PUD in the harm reduction movement at local and global scales, suggesting that addiction research and policy development that neglects the direct involvement of PUD bears little, if any, relevance to the people in whose interests it is ostensibly conducted.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".