Luo Di Sheng Gen (落地生根): Early Taiwanese-Chinese Immigrants in Canada and Guam
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Recent literature on new Taiwanese-Chinese immigrants to Western countries has focussed on those who have arrived since the late 1980s — but may not be staying permanently in their host countries — and have adopted a transnational residence pattern which requires them to engage in two or more social fields. Using autobiographical interviews, the author reconstructs the lives of early Taiwanese-Chinese immigrants in three different cities in Canada, and in Guam, an Unincorporated Territory of the US located in the insular western Pacific region. The three major research themes in this study pertain to reasons for and processes of migration, lived experiences, and self-identity. For this study, 46 Taiwanese-Chinese immigrants (24 in Canada and 22 in Guam) were selected from the available samples in the two respective regions where the author conducted extensive fieldwork in 2008-2011. Arriving mainly in the 1960s and 1970s, the early Taiwanese-Chinese immigrants to Canada and Guam survived various hardships, worked or established businesses from which they earned a steady income. Diligence, ingenuity and perseverance, as well as skills in entrepreneurship and social capital brought from Taiwan, served them well in their achievements in their new home countries in Canada and Guam. As young, well-educated university graduates or professionals at the time of immigration, sometimes re-migrating from another country, they developed significant language competency, social skills, and local knowledge in Canada and Guam. Having a strong sense of belonging, and identifying with the countries they have moved to, most of the Taiwanese-Chinese of Canada and Guam who took part in this study have become “permanent settlers” and some have even retired and remained in their host regions enjoying the multi-cultural environment. The current inquiry provides a timely case study of the meaningful diversity that is present among Taiwanese-Chinese permanent settlers, who are different from the transnational or circular migrants commonly found in the last three decades.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».