American Indian historical trauma: Anticolonial prescriptions for healing, resilience, and survivance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Indian historical trauma (HT) concept is an important precursor to racial trauma (RT) theory that reflects the distinct interests of sovereign Indigenous nations but shares much of the same promise and challenge. Here, that promise and challenge is explored by tracing HT's theoretical development in terms of its anticolonial ambitions and organizing ideas. Three predominant modes of engaging HT were distilled form the literature (HT as a clinical condition, life stressor, and critical discourse), each informing a research program pursuing a different anticolonial ambition (healing trauma, promoting resilience, practicing survivance) organized by distinct ideas about colonization, wellness, and Indigeneity. Through critical reflection on these different ambitions and dialogue of their organizing ideas, conflict between research programs can be mitigated and a more productive anticolonialism realized in psychology and related health fields. Key recommendations emphasized clarifying clinical concepts (e.g., clinical syndrome vs. idiom of distress), disentangling clinical narratives of individual pathology (e.g., trauma) from social narratives of population adversity (e.g., survivance stories), attending to features of settler-colonialism not easily captured by heath indices (e.g., structural violence), and encouraging alignment of anticolonial efforts with constructive critiques establishing conceptual bridges to disciplines that can help to advance psychological understandings of colonization and Indigenous wellness (e.g., postcolonial studies). This conceptual framework was applied to the RT literature to elaborate similar recommendations for advancing RT theory and the interests of ethnic/racial minority populations through engagement with psychology and related health fields. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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".