Epistemic oppression and sites of resistance in mental health systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The epistemological foundation of Western psychiatric mental health service systems within North America was conceived within colonial and reductionist agendas that perpetuate systemic racism. This epistemological hegemony has been the primary hindrance for transformative social work and the achievement of social justice for racialized services recipients in mental health systems. One of colonialism’s most indispensable tools is epistemic oppression. While many organizations have focused on equity movements (i.e., Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) or Anti-Oppressive Practice) to address inequities and oppression, these initiatives have not been effective in challenging the power structures perpetuated by epistemic privilege. The pervasive question that has plagued my social work practice in mental health has been: can epistemic and social justice be realized in mainstream medicalized psychiatric-based systems that are designed to perpetuate existing power structures? This article will help address the complexity of this question through a critical analysis of the presence and impact of epistemic oppression in mental health, its harms, methods of resistance, the appropriation of EDI, and implications for social work practice.
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 | 0.031 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.175 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".