Untangling racism: Stress reactions in response to variations of racism against Black Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ability to effectively contend with racism is likely undermined by factors that promote uncertainty regarding racist motives. A national policy of multiculturalism exists in Canada, which is intended to encourage cultural diversity, but can also serve to mask systemic racism. This may contribute to uncertainty when racism is encountered, with implications for the appraisals, coping, and stress-related outcomes of ethnoracial minorities. Two studies were conducted to assess Black Canadians’ experiences of racism, and their reactions to variations in the nature of the experience. A survey study found that Black Canadians’ ( n = 158) self-reported past encounters with explicit racism were associated with anger-out coping, which in turn was related to lower depressive affect. In contrast, ambiguous racism was related to keeping anger in and higher depressive affect; this relation was exacerbated when participants believed Blacks were held in high regard by others, likely adding uncertainty to interpreting behaviours as racist. An experimental study manipulated the nature of racist cues conveyed in a videotaped description of the experiences of a Black male interviewee. When the Black interviewee described racist experiences that were ambiguous (vs. explicit) both White ( n = 112) and Black ( n = 99) observers were less likely to appraise events as racist, even when physical violence was involved. However, the moment-to-moment distress elicited while listening the interviewee’s description of their racist experiences was uniquely associated with higher cortisol levels among Blacks (but not Whites), especially when physical violence was present. Taken together, the findings contribute to our understanding of the processes by which ambiguous racism might operate to undermine the well-being of targeted groups. Moreover, it is suggested that policies conveying that ethnoracial groups are highly valued (e.g., multiculturalism) might actually exacerbate negative effects of racist experiences, particularly in the absence of an open discourse acknowledging the presence of systemic racism.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".