The Next Generation of Clinical-Psychological Science: Moving Toward Anti-Racism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of clinical-psychological science exists in a broader field of psychology that is increasingly acknowledged as embedded in racist and white-supremacist history. In the production of clinical-psychological science, the clinical science model predominates as one of the most influential scientific voices that emphasizes the value of rigorous scientific theory, training, and praxis. We highlight some of the ways in which the clinical science model has neglected anti-racism. By examining the idiosyncratic development of the clinical science model in clinical-psychological science, we outline how its failure to contend with systemic racism in the field propagates a racist subdiscipline. Our hope is that by enacting difficult self-reflection, we invite other stakeholders in our field to think more critically about how systemic racism and white supremacy pervade our structures and institutions and to begin making more concrete changes that move the clinical-psychological-science field toward explicit anti-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 | 0.183 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.120 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".