Parents constructions of their child's Black-white (bi)racial identity(ies): A critical discourse analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research suggests that biracial individuals experience racism similar to that of other racialized groups (Anderson, 2015) and that they are better able to confront racism and the challenges that come with identifying with more than one race when parents openly discuss racial differences (Rollins & Hunter, 2013; Snyder, 2012). Employing a Critical Race Theoretical framework and utilizing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this study was two-fold in that it explored the constructions of six parents with black-white biracial children as it related to their child/ren’s racial identity(ies) and also examined the way that black-white biracial children’s identities were represented and supported in family support settings. Using Gee’s (2011) toolkit for CDA, five main discourses were identified in the data: colour blindness, children are too young to understand race, ‘blackness’ is negative, white fragility allows white people to offload responsibility, and that Eurocentric ideals are considered the norm in family support settings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".