Exploration of Racial Enactments in an Interracial Therapeutic Dyad to Foster the Strengthening of Voice and Identity in African American Male Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of systemic racism on an interracial therapeutic dyad between a white therapist and an African American adolescent male. Leary (2000 Leary, K. (2000). Racial enactments in dynamic treatment. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 10(4), 639–653. doi:10.1080/10481881009348573[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) operationalized the term “racial enactments” and made the important point that its “most common” manifestation “has been our relative silence about racial issues” (p. 647). It is the premise of this paper that the youth of color’s subjective experience of racial microaggressions and assaults experienced on a daily basis must be validated and explored prior to a meaningful intersubjective exploration in the clinical encounter. The emphasis in this paper is on the racial enactment that precedes the clinical encounter. A treatment vignette is used to highlight the intersection of social and psychic spheres of human experience and how an awareness of unconscious bias in the therapist can facilitate a more meaningful dialogue in which priority is given to the emergence of a powerful client narrative voice.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".