Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to examine the conceptions of Chineseness and the perceptions of China in Ontario's High School History Curriculum from 1945 to the end of the 1980s. Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines the syllabus and textbooks in the period that were taught in schools in Ontario. Curriculum guidelines and documents published by the Ontario Department (later Ministry) of Education were studied, as well as the Circular 14, which lists the approved textbooks from which the textbooks where chosen for this paper. The impact-response and tradition-modernity approaches to the study and writing of Chinese enabled the unpacking of the western-centric presuppositions in the textbooks. Findings – From the onset, the Chinese history that was taught and presented was a western-centric one. The paper demonstrates that post Second World War Chinese history that was taught via the Ontario High School History Curriculum and textbooks reflected a view of Chineseness that regards the Chinese and the Chinese civilization was regarded as essentialized, backward and staticvis-à-visthe modern West. Implicit in such a conception of Chineseness is that of western superiority over the Chinese civilization. Originality/value – There have been few studies on how the history of Asia is represented in Canadian school history. Knowing how Chinese history is represented in Ontario High Schools is an interesting case study of how white settler societies viewed and understood China. This study also sheds light on the broader issue of the problematic at play when Asian history is taught and represented in other white settler societies like Australia, New Zealand and the USA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".