Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diaspora women, with origins in Hindu Indian cultural spaces, are seeking psychotherapy to address mental health and personal identity issues within the North American context. Since psychotherapy literature is dominated by ethnocentric Euro-North American paradigms, the challenge to analysts and therapists working in the diaspora is to widen bedrock questions of counter-transference, neutrality, identity and psychotherapy processes to accommodate the cross-cultural realities of Hindu women. This article suggests that contemporary discourse on intrapsychic theories or psychotherapeutic work needs enrichment by multi-disciplinary discourses with social sciences, cross-cultural studies, alternative healing traditions augmented by structural, mythic, metaphoric and hermeneutic reasoning. Working with women in the Indian diaspora implicates the traditions of Hindu gendered hierarchies, the living legacy of the mother goddess, caste structures and boundaries, as well as differences between Western feminism and a feminism formed from South Asian contextual currents. The diaspora woman is in a predicament of options as she is pressured to reconcile and master her choice of internalisations from both traditional and Western individuation paradigms while finding her voice shaped by her particular narrative. Economic, legal and educational advantages in the host country allow options that place her in conflict with traditional identity paradigms. Older diaspora women may carry many worlds within them that shape their marital life, parenting and other role changes related to the migratory reality. The article explores some trends in the literature regarding South Asian women in therapy. It raises unresolved questions situated in therapeutic work illustrated by personal clinical vignettes.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.149 | 0.046 |
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".