The The Violence of Colonization and the Importance of Decolonizing Therapeutic Relationship: The Role of Helper in Centring Indigenous Wisdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engaging existing literature and current mainstream frontline health and mental health practice, this article expands research on the impact of colonization and mainstream mental health practices on Indigenous clients. Through this process, it creates new ground on which decolonizing therapeutic responses to ongoing attempted genocide are introduced, described, and developed. I identify the brutality of historical and contemporary colonization as one of the major influences in undermining Indigenous clients’ health and wellbeing—a perspective that decentres and resists individualistic pathologizing that is the focal point of mainstream psychiatric diagnoses and treatment. I also illustrate the negative impacts of psychiatric assessment for Indigenous clients and demonstrate how mainstream mental health practices, in not acknowledging colonization as the context for Indigenous clients’ suffering, are implicated in ongoing enactments of colonial oppression. The mainstream assessment of Indigenous clients’ suicidality as an individualized mental health disorder is also problematized. I conclude by centring Indigenous ways of knowing and culture in the promotion of health and wellbeing for Indigenous clients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".