Canadian University Students’ Experiences of Addiction Recovery: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addiction is a critical concern on Canadian post-secondary campuses, yet recovery remains largely overlooked. Guided by a recovery capital framework, this pilot survey explored the recovery characteristics, supports, and barriers among 101 Canadian university students (average age 24.5). Participants reflected diversity across gender (men 49.5%, women 39.6%, minoritized 10.9%), sexual orientation (LGBTQIA2S+ 46.5%), and race/ethnicity (racially minoritized 45.5%). Recovery pathways were primarily abstinence-based (59.4%), followed by non-abstinence approaches (25.7%) and those unsure (9.9%). Students reported recovering from alcohol (44.6%), cannabis (26.7%), self-harm (24.8%), nicotine (23.8%), and eating issues (21.8%). The most useful supports were individual therapy (52.5%), media (35.6%), and peer groups (33.7%). Barriers included fear of losing coping mechanisms (63.4%) and minimizing problem severity (48.5%). Most students viewed campus as recovery-threatening (68.3%) and called for more supports, particularly substance-free residence housing (74.3%) and better access to services (29.7%). Findings underscore the need for recovery-inclusive strategies in Canadian higher education.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".