Harm Reduction Ethics in Crisis (Work): The Manifestation of Spiritual Pain in the Everyday Practice of Street Outreach Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the accounts of street outreach workers in Toronto, Ontario, this critical qualitative study reveals the disjuncture between a street outreach worker’s harm-reduction ethics and their crisis work. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven street outreach workers who self-identified as working from a harm reduction ethic. This study sought to situate the everyday experiences of street outreach workers who engage in crisis work within the often-invisible realm of organizational and environmental influences, such as program funding, restrictive health care policies and processes, and the criminalization of people who use drugs. Through the lens of spiritual pain and collective ethics, the findings explicate how workers come to accept, consent, and resist ethical tensions present in their practice of crisis work and create a discussion for the implications of spiritual pain on workplace sustainability. In doing so, the scholarship of workplace ethics, harm reduction, and street outreach work has been bridged.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".