The imperative to support Black youths in resisting low and limiting expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harmful narratives circulate about Black youths in North America. Deficit narratives portray them, their culture, and their communities as problems, narratives about policing encourage their control and punishment, color-evasive narratives ignore how race shapes their experiences, and essentialist narratives erase their distinct and often intersectional experiences by presenting them as monolithic. Community psychology and allied fields do not escape these trends, which in turn infuse practice, research, and teaching involving Black youths. The present paper highlights four principles that community psychology and allied fields can adopt to support Black youths in resisting these negative and narrow narratives. They are: (1) emphasizing Black youths' and Black communities' strengths, (2) supporting their agency, (3) adopting culturally relevant practices, and (4) developing critical consciousness through reflections on and deconstruction of these narratives. We hope that the reflections shared in this paper will expand the perspectives infused by researchers and practitioners in community psychology, social work, urban studies, and allied fields who work with Black youths.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".