Processes of Power and Constructions of Identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to create a space to explore and center marginalized knowledge, and voices of Indo-Caribbean Canadian mental health service recipients. I did this by interviewing five participants, with the aim of examining processes of identity construction of racialized people involved in formal mental health systems, and the forces that shape this construction. Areas of inquiry included definitions ofmental health and illness and their treatment; processes of identity construction around race, ethnicity, and mental health identity within this system; the power structures that shape these constructions, and the notion of cultural relevance. In a parallel process of exploration, as a means of addressing power through transparency, I also examined my identity and positioning as a researcher. At the outset of this study I anticipated tensions and discrepancies between participants ' constructions of identity and mental health, and the dominant discourses and constructions in the mental health system. Results indicated a
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 | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.130 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".