After the Missionaries: Churches and Human Rights NGOs in Canadian relations with China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian relations with China, historically, have been driven by missionary work and the search for expanded trade. Missionary work drew on the search for souls to save, but morphed into development (building schools and hospitals). Trade promotion, meanwhile, drew on age-old tropes of “Oriental riches” and “the China market.” The missionary and merchant impulses have intertwined in Sino-Canadian relations. This article examines the post-missionary engagement of Canadian churches and human rights advocacy of Canadian non-governmental organizations with China since the 1970s. The focus is on two ecumenical coalitions the Canadian churches sponsored: the Canada China Programme and the Canada Asia Working Group. The former emphasized themes of partnership with Chinese Christian networks as the People’s Republic of China began to open up to the world; the latter stressed advocacy for human rights and economic justice. The tensions within these coalitions illustrate the larger tension between engagement and trade on the one hand, and rights advocacy on the other, in Sino-Canadian relations. These case studies also show the importance of non-state actors in trans-Pacific relations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".