Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of pre-1950s Chinese Canadian Christianity have tended to occlude Chinese perspectives and experiences for a number of reasons, including a lack of sources. Drawing on largely unpublished Chinese and English source materials including scrapbooks, correspondence, reports, membership rosters, marriage, funeral and clergy records, Chinese nationalist registers, diaries, oral histories, photographs and material culture, this article investigates Chinese experiences of Canadian Presbyterian missionary work in Victoria, Cumberland, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal between 1896 and 1950. By examining the personal archival materials of Ma Seung, Frank Chan and Ernest Mark, and era-specific Chinese political involvements and fieldwork data, this article challenges previous simplistic understandings of the Chinese missionary experience that were based solely on the perspectives of mainstream Christian institutions and society. This article emphasizes the Chinese context and concepts such as the dao, efficacy ( ling), and affect ( renqing, or human sentiments) that guided relationships and faith in early Chinese Canada. It aims to provide a more complicated understanding of why Chinese ministers chose to Christianize fellow Chinese, and why before 1950 many Chinese chose to be nominal Christians and only a small number converted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".