Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I will discuss my research on Chinese community politics and Australia's early 20th-century immigration restriction policy. First, I will introduce my project which uses the newly discovered archives of the first Chinese Consulate in Australia and the archives of the Sydney and Melbourne branches of the Chinese Nationalist Party of Australasia (KMT). These archives add community perspectives and enhance our understanding of Chinese Australian history. Second, I will discuss how community archives portray Chinese Australian transnational networks under White Australia. The travels of Chinese merchants, journalists and students in the Pacific were not only connected to commercial interests but also to educational and publishing interests. The connections of Chinese intellectuals between Sydney, Shanghai, Tokyo, Hawaii, San Francisco and Vancouver were also reflected in Chinese Australian newspapers, national archives and community archives. Third, I will use the archives to discuss how Australia's Chinese immigration restriction influenced community politics. After 1912, five classes of Chinese were allowed to apply to enter Australia. A first wave of Chinese students arrived during the 1910s and 1920s, encouraged by a new immigration regulation. The new administration also empowered the Chinese Consulate to issue and identify the applications of Chinese applying to come to Australia. It thus restructured the community leadership. The transnational mobility of Chinese Australians after the 1920s was sustained with documentation of migration related to social networks, their relationship with Chinese consuls and financial sponsorship of local Chinese merchants.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".