White trauma: tracing trauma informed recovery and white supremacy in social work practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative research study examines how five prominent recovery oriented community based organizations talk out loud about themselves, their service population and recovery. Using a critical discourse analysis, pervasive discursive patterns were revealed through thematic analysis. This study details the way in which trauma-informed care quietly manifests alongside the same guiding principles as the recovery model, creating a compounded site of power whereby one lives both inside and outside the bounds of the other. The purpose of this study is to call attention to the illusive nature of these widely-celebrated models, disrupting the unchecked, institutionalized supremacy of the whiteness that prevails within. Applying the concept of creaming to social service provision in Toronto, this study makes the claim that white trauma is centred within recovery oriented service construction and provision given it causes the least structural disruption. This process ultimately sustains the feel-good culture that envelops recovery based and trauma-informed social work.
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".