Becoming a Model Minority: The Depiction of Japanese Canadians in the Globe and Mail, 1946–2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the questions of whether the portrayal of Japanese Canadians in the media has changed over time and what accounts for the change or the lack thereof. These questions were addressed by conducting a content analysis of the portrayal of Japanese Canadians in the Globe and Mail from 1946 to 2000. Using frame analysis, this paper shows that the frames used to portray Japanese Canadians changed from the Unthreatening Community Frame, 1946–1980, to the Justified Victims Frame, 1981–1990, to the Model Minority Frame, 1991–2000. The findings indicate that the frames are not just imposed on Japanese Canadians by the media, but that they reflect the interaction of the changing norms of the Globe and Mail , as well as the changing Japanese Canadian experience. However, all the frames overlook the complex nature of the Japanese Canadian community and minimize past and current discrimination. Dans cet article, nous examinons si le portrait des Canadiens japonais a changé dans les média avec le temps et ce qui explique cette évolution ou ce statu quo. Pour traiter de ces questions, nous avons analysé comment le journal le Globe and Mail les a dépeints de 1946 à l’an 2000. À partir d’une analyse du cadrage de Goffman, nous démontrons que celui servant à représenter les Nippo-Canadiens a changé du temps du « cadrage d’une communauté non-menaçante » (1946 –1980), au « cadrage des victimes justifiées » (1981 – 1990) et au « cadrage d’une minorité mo-dèle » (1991 – 2000). Les résultats indiquent que ces cadrages ne sont pas simplement imposés à ces derniers par les média, mais qu’ils reflètent l’interaction des changements normatifs du Globe and Mail autant qu’une mutation de l’expérience des Canadiens japonais. Pourtant, aucun ne tient compte de la complexité qui règne au sein de la communauté nippo-canadienne, et tous minimisent la discrimination passée et actuelle.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".