Intersectional Discrimination and Psychological Distress Among Black 2SLGBTQIA+ People in Canada: A Critical Ecological and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hegemonic power bestowed toward a biomedical psychiatric model of mental health aids in trivializing the impacts of the social context on managing risks and shaping the accessibility of resources. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory argues that the ecology of human development unfolds through interactions with different interdependent systems. The minority stress model suggests that exposure to discrimination in different ecological systems related to one’s “social statuses […] can result in adverse mental health outcomes” (Meyer, 2003; Schmitz et al., 2020, p.164-165). In this contemporary moment, while Black people are over-represented in care systems as already diseased prone, I wish to complicate this view by interrogating the colonial, multi-system, anti-Black, classist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, and transphobic roots of psychological distress experienced by Black 2LGBTQIA+ people. To this end, this thesis critically reviews Canadian literature examining Black 2LGBTQIA+ people’s multisystem experiences of distress and collective resistance strategies. It begins with a brief historicization unveiling the colonial roots of neoliberal understandings of mental health practice and exposing social work’s role in the settler-colonial project. Theoretical insights from decolonial and feminist approaches to social work and Mad Studies are deployed to problematize and create counter-narratives to neoliberal and biomedical models of mental health. Grounded in Black 2SLGBTQIA+ people’s collective embodied experiences and resistance strategies and the theoretical foundations mentioned above, this thesis provides recommendations for liberating marginalized people from oppressive mental health institutions at micro and macro levels of service provision.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".