Being global versus being Chinese : a case study of returned students in Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hong Kong Chinese have always faced a dilemma in claiming a regional, localized Hong Kong identity and in claiming a cultural, national Chinese identity. The colonial history of Hong Kong has distinguished the city from any other Chinese societies. While inheriting the cultural legacy of Chinese people, Hong Kong Chinese see themselves distinct from Chinese people in Mainland China or in other Chinese societies. Since 1 July 1997, Hong Kong has become a part of China. The end of colonial era in Hong Kong sees an emergence of Chinese nationalism and patriotism in the ex-British colony. Hong Kong Chinese have few doubts with their Chinese nationality since then. Yet the zealous emphasis on Chinese-ness and nationalism has created tension to Hong Kong people, who are also very proud of their global personality and the international, cosmopolitan outlook of the City. In this study, I am interesting in learning how Hong Kong Chinese deal with this tension through maneuvering their different identities, in particular, as a global person and as Chinese national. I interviewed a group of returned Canadian university graduates, who exemplify the tension between being globalized and being nationalistic in postcolonial Hong Kong. I have noticed that my informants, consciously or not, strategically use essences of Chinese-ness and western-ness in the construction of their Hong Kong identity. This strategic essentialization in identity construction empowers my informants in passive resistance to the mainstream culture.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".