Christianity among Transnational Chinese: Religious versus (Sub)ethnic Affiliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The approximately 5 per cent of the diaspora Chinese who are Christian are faced with the question as to whether religious or sectarian affiliation takes priority over Chinese unity or sub‐Chinese identity. For many, the solution is to form (sub)ethnic congregations, and the issue is how far and how fast they (especially younger members) should “assimilate” linguistically and socially to Anglo‐Canadian or other local styles in the host country. One response is the formation of a pan‐Chinese transnational Christian organization, the Chinese Coordination Centre for World Evangelism (CCCOWE), whose mission attempts to unite Chinese of all subethnicities, reach Chinese in remote areas, control and manage existing congregations everywhere, and resist local assimilation. Although claiming to represent all Chinese, in fact, CCCOWE began as a Cantonese‐medium movement in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China (hereinafter Hong Kong), but is now coming to terms with Chinese Christians from other parts of Asia, as well as with the inevitable localization/anglicization of congregations. Some churches refuse to associate with CCCOWE for dislike of Hong Kong, others due to preference for their own language (Indonesian), or birth place (Malaysia/Singapore). Thus, in some cases, subethnicity is subordinated to religious (Christian) identity across the world, in others, to a pan‐Chinese religious membership, while for many, religion continues to follow subethnic lines, variously defined by language or birth place.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".