Being Strong: How Black West‐Indian Canadian Women Manage Depression and Its Stigma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To discover how women from a nondominant cultural background (West Indian) experience and manage depression. DESIGN: Explanatory using grounded theory. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 Black West-Indian Canadian women who experienced depression. Between 1994 and 1996, the first author engaged in participant observation. FINDINGS: The women used the basic social process they called "being strong" to manage or ameliorate depression. Being strong included "dwelling on it," "diverting myself," and "regaining my composure." For most of the women, the range of available life choices was limited to the three processes; however, a few engaged in "trying new approaches." These women were less limited in their range of cultural and behavioral boundaries than were the others, and began tentatively to explore other options for themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Black West-Indian Canadian women in this study managed their depression in culturally defined ways by being strong and not showing vulnerability. Because being strong was also evident in a previous study of dominant-culture women as a prelude to depression, the process may be widespread in women prone to depression. The findings provide helpful information for intervening in an unfamiliar culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".