The development and social background of overseas Chinese studies in North America: Striving to establish a history of Asian immigrants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of Overseas Chinese studies is inextricably linked with the historical and social context of the nation-state in which the field was established. In discussing the development of historical studies of the Chinese in North America in the second half of the 20th century, this paper examines how Overseas Chinese studies was established as a specific research field and reveals the field’s characteristics which are tied with the American context as a whole. From the early 1960s, Chinese immigrant intellectuals in the Canadian and American West Coast authored histories of the overseas Chinese in Chinese. These studies relied on the historical materials of Chinese immigrants and on Chinese secondary sources published under the Overseas Chinese policy of the Taiwanese KMT. From the 1970s, as part of the AsianAmerican movement, second generation and immigrant middle-class Chinese intellectuals established the new framework of Asian-American studies. This field proposed a scholarship which legitimated the historical experience and presence of the Asian in American society and was thus premised on Asians as American citizens. The most recent scholarship on the overseas Chinese has introduced the concept of transnationalism, which is premised on mobility, and several empirical historical studies have been produced in this field to overcome the nation-state paradigm.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".