Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor: The original Microaggressions Triangle Model developed by Ackerman-Barger and Jacobs positions the “recipient,” “source,” and “bystander” involved in an act of microaggression with a suggested response for each party, respectively, at the vertices of a triangle; the sides appear to represent the relationships between the 3 participants. 1 In their AM Last Page, Poorsattar and colleagues have modified the original model to locate the actors along the sides of a triangle. 2 This alteration, while subtle, suggests that the 3 parties are equally responsible and accountable to address the microaggression. However, responsibility should sit primarily with the “source,” and not be shared equally with the “recipient.” This newer model conveys the wrong message. It is concerning that the model by Poorsattar and colleagues has been disseminated in its current form, and as such, may be accepted into wider discourse over the original model by Ackerman-Barger and Jacobs. Ackerman-Barger and Jacobs focus on individual microaggressions; consequently, their model does not include institutions or organizations, and is not used to describe systemic, systematic, or structural racism, for which the term “macroaggression” is often used. In contrast, Poorsattar and colleagues do include the “institution” in their model, implying that their model is not limited to individual microaggressions. Unlike their recommendations for “recipients,” “sources,” and “bystanders,” there is no accompanying reference for the actions they suggest “institutions” perform. The lack of supporting evidence is problematic. Moreover, they have placed the “institution” next to the “bystander” along the same side, but institutions and organizations are not “bystanders.” They are the workplace contexts in which microaggressions play out. Workplace culture greatly influences the likelihood of microaggressions being inflicted; the harm done; and the probability of acknowledgment, apology, and reconciliation being undertaken. Poorsattar and colleagues’ model fails to represent organizations’ moral duty to establish and ensure safe workplaces. Although the original model by Ackerman-Barger and Jacobs is less problematic than the modified version created by Poorsattar and colleagues, both models require the use of language that more honestly and accurately reflects the experience of a microaggression. While using terms such as “perpetrator” carries heavy emotional meaning, the use of neutral words such as “source” does not justly reflect the targeting of the “recipient” and the resulting harm done to the one on the receiving end of a microaggression. Calling things by their proper names is the beginning of meaningful dialogue.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,076 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,028 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».