Missing and Misrepresented: Portrayals of Other Ethnic and Racialized Groups in a Greater Toronto Area Ethnocultural Newspaper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vibrant ethnocultural press in the Greater Toronto Area is a testament to the multicultural reality of a metropolitan area where visible minorities are expected to be the majority by 2031. The GTA's ethnocultural and racialized communities are served by more than 200 newspapers, many of them published in languages other than English or French. What role do these publications play in shaping how ethnic and racialized groups "see" each other? This case study examines how other groups are portrayed in the Chinese-language daily newspaper Ming Pao . With the exception of members of the White community, it concludes that other racial and ethnic groups are represented only to a limited extent and that, in some cases, they are also misrepresented. La presse ethnoculturelle dynamique de la région de Toronto témoigne de la réalité multiculturelle de la zone métropolitaine où on prévoit que les minorités visibles seront majoritaires d'ici 2031. Les communautés ethnoculturelles et racialisées de la région de Toronto ont accès à plus de 200 journaux, dont plusieurs sont publiés dans des langues autres que l'anglais ou le français. Quel est le rôle de ces publications sur leur perception mutuelle les unes des autres? Dans cette étude, nous examinons comment le quotidien Ming Pao de langue chinoise dépeint d'autres groupes ethniques. Nous concluons que, à l'exception de la communauté blanche, les autres groupes ethniques et raciaux y sont peu et même, dans certains cas, faussement représentés.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".