Ordinary Traumas:Resilience, Vulnerability, and Everyday Crises for People who use Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<br/>Often people with substance use disorders, particularly in contexts of poverty and deprivation, face multiple, coinciding crises relating to their substance use, mental health issues, and traumatic occurrences. It is well established that experiences of trauma at once worsen health outcomes for people who use drugs (PWUD), heighten risk of overdose, and disrupt attempts to pursue recovery (Lee et al. 2020, Moustafa et al. 2021). Such experiences are moreover shaped and compelled by historical, economic, and structural forces that filter into daily life.<br/><br/>Drawing on long-term ethnographic fieldwork with people who use drugs, this paper traces how enduring experiences of crises give rise to specific conceptualisations of recovery, resilience, and ‘repair’ among PWUD. It further explores how notions of personal resilience become both juxtaposed against, and dynamically entwined with, experiences of vulnerability, despair, and surrender. It is through the dual, iterative interaction of resilience and vulnerability, the paper argues, that people who use drugs contend with the shattering effects of trauma and crisis. In an everyday sense, crises are rendered ‘ordinary,’ even where life is marked by continual disruption and flux. Reflecting on implications for practice, we ask how systems of care can reckon with the full complexity of co-occurring crises and nuanced accounts of trauma. The paper overall gives an ethnographic portrait of how recovery from both traumatic events and substance use disorders is lived and experienced in the ordinary everyday.<br/>
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".