Racism and Friends: The Relevance of Racial Literacy in Clinical Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Racial literacy is presented as a framework for bolstering clinical skills among mental health providers, particularly when racism and/or other sources of oppression need to be addressed within clinical spaces. Traditional multicultural psychology training is intended to build upon students’ diversity awareness. There are, however, gaps that contribute to the predominantly White population of counseling trainees exiting their training with limited capacity to address racism and other sources of oppression. This manuscript maintains that racial literacy is a tool that can be used intersectionally to address the problem of racism and racism's friends (e.g., patriarchy and heteronormativity). A case study approach is used to center the discussion of the three domains of racial literacy. The first domain is recognition and refers to detecting, noticing, and observing sensory experiences and environmental stimuli (verbal and nonverbal). Reading is the second domain of racial literacy and describes an accurate naming of the sensory experience detected. The third domain is resolving which describes taking action, problem solving, and intervening.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".