A Bourdieusian Analysis of Resilience among Victimized Individuals who Smoke Crack Cocaine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals who smoke crack cocaine face pervasive sources of adversity, including chronic victimization; nevertheless, in spite of such experiences many find ways to persevere. However, on trend with research in the general substance use literature, studies of crack use are preoccupied with describing and analyzing vulnerabilities and risks. Consequently, “resilience” is not a lens through which individuals who smoke crack are examined. Indeed, current psychological conceptualizations of resilience remain too narrow to recognize all the potential manifestations of resilience in the daily lives of individuals who regularly use drugs. There is a lack of studies that examine, from a resilience perspective, the practices that may protect individuals who smoke crack from victimization, or assist them in dealing with the effects of such adverse events within a high-risk environment. The primary objective of this PhD dissertation was to theoretically reconceptualize resilience using Bourdieu’s theory of practice and apply it to the particular case of victimization in crack culture. A qualitative study was conducted examining responses to victimization and the types of coping strategies utilized among thirty street-involved individuals who regularly smoke crack in a mid-sized community in Southern Ontario, Canada. Findings show that participants mobilize their capacities and resources to “rebound” from victimization in the crack field through various resilience practices. These individuals rely on their own embodied competencies and the social capital available to them through their networks, in order to avoid or deal with victimization. A focused analysis of self-blame following victimization reveals the dual nature of this practice – which often causes suffering, but also produces opportunities for agency, competency, and survivorship. By providing a theoretically-based broad definition of resilience, this research uncovers hidden, socially marginalized, misunderstood, or de-valued practices that assist street-involved individuals who smoke crack in avoiding or dealing with victimization in a challenging context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".