MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1910886292

Who Built the Canadian Pacific Railway? Chinese Workers from Hoisan

2008· article· en· W1910886292 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josie Chan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaChinatownImmigrationMulticulturalismHistoryWhite (mutation)CharterGeographyDiversity (politics)Ethnic groupMainland ChinaEthnologyGenealogyPolitical scienceLawArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional Canadian historiography, at least until the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 spurred a more multicultural mandate, has excluded immigrant and aboriginal stories told by themselves. There are Chinese voices in the academy now, but they speak only from a post-World War II perspective. This is a laudable step towards recognizing racial diversity, but racial diversity is not only visual (red, yellow, black, white and brown) but also linguistic. Within each ethnic category there is a sonic diversity. The post-war presentation of Chinese in Canadian history imposes the Cantonese dialect, but in reality Chinese immigrants spoke and still speak a variety of different dialects. The voices of Chinese railroad workers are scarce in Canada in part because of an oversimplification of a complex sonic diversity. Most of them came from a region in South China that had numerous dialects. In particular, it is significant that the majority of labourers employed in building the Canadian Pacific Railway through the Rockies spoke dialects other than Cantonese. (Lai, 1977). Most Chinese who worked on the Canadian Pacific Railway in Alberta and British Columbia came from the region of Hlee Yep (aka Sze Yi or Sei Yup) in South China. Hlee Yep comprises Four Districts along the southern belly of China and the Pearl River Delta and is geographically the most distant region from Guangzhou (Canton). Hlam Yep, in contrast, comprises the three counties closest to Gong Jiu, and it consequently enjoys economic benefits derived from its proximity to the capital. Within Hlee Yep the county furthest from urban economic benefit was Hoisan (aka Taishan or Toysan), and consequently its people led the exodus to Gold Mountain. Residents from the Hlee Yep region comprised 62.7% of the Chinese CPR workforce. By contrast, only 2.5% of the same workforce came from Hlam Yep. The dialect that Hlam Yep people speak has been simplified to ‘Cantonese’ (or ‘provincial speech’) whereas the Hlee Yep dialects are generally referred to as Hoisan Wah, Hoisanese or simply Hoisan. Hoisan was the dominant sound in North American Chinatowns until the mid-1960s, but while statistics exist on Cantonese and Mandarin speakers in Canada today there are none on Hoisan speakers. Hoisan thus represents a significant gap in the soundscape of Canadian culture and history.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0350.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→