MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063704050 · doi:10.1163/18765610-02003008

Images and Immigration: China and Canada

2013· article· en· W2063704050 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patricia E. Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of American-East Asian Relations · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaImmigrationRefugeeImmigration policyPolitical scienceEmigrationOverpopulationDevelopment economicsPopulationLawSociologyEconomicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long before most Canadians ever saw a Chinese person, they heard from travellers, traders, diplomats, and missionaries of a country suffering from uprisings and wars, corruption and vice, intellectual stagnancy, and huge overpopulation. Such images influenced Canada’s immigration policy toward Chinese that began with the imposition of a head tax in 1886 and became an exclusionary policy in 1923. The perceived inability of weak and divided Chinese governments to regulate emigration thwarted Canadian efforts to devise less humiliating methods of restricting immigration. Sympathy for China in its war against Japan after July 1937 boosted China’s image in Canada. That, along with greater concern in Canada for human rights, contributed to the beginning of an easing of restrictions on Chinese immigration in 1947. For humanitarian reasons, after the formation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, Canada admitted a handful of refugees. An estimated 11,000 Chinese entered Canada illegally during the first decade of the PRC. By the 1960s, China was a world power and a significant market for Canadian products. Thus, when Canada reformed its immigration policies it judged potential Chinese immigrants, along with others, more on their skills than on their country of origin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of American-East Asian RelationsSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207