MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310956263 · doi:10.14288/1.0093735

Prestige, power, and the Chinese

2011· article· en· W2310956263 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bonnie H. Erickson

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Relations and Foreign Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrestigePower (physics)LinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extensive literature in the active field of community power studies suffers from a lack of comparative work in areas other than middle-sized North American cities, while the literature on overseas Chinese communities lacks sophisticated methods of study and precise results. This thesis is an attempt to augment the literature in both areas by applying community power study techniques to the overseas Chinese community in Vancouver. An interview schedule was constructed and interviews were conducted with thirty-five leading Chinese who held at least one office in a Chinese association. Information obtained included the personal background of leaders, their opinions on leaders and associations, and their reports on various recent issues in the Chinese community. Responses concerning the influence of leaders, the influence of associations, and the basis of leadership were taken as components of ideology. Unfortunately, these components showed little relationship to each other or to the two variables with which they were expected to be associated: the generation and number of offices of the evaluator. Nominations of generally influential leaders were related to nominations of leaders in the particular areas of welfare, representation of the community, the Chinese language schools, and business. Frequently nominated general influentials were also often named as particularly well-informed about community affairs. There was also a relationship between general nominations and offices held, although the correlation was less than had been expected. The general nominations were slightly biased because second generation leaders were over-represented in the sample, made more general nominations than first generation subjects, and more often nominated leaders of their own generation. Fifty-five men were named as general influentials; twenty-five of these were nominated by at least two men of one generation. Ten were classed as first generation leaders and fifteen as second generation leaders. The two top groups of influentials were distinct in age, occupation, number of offices, and prominence in school activities. Both groups were distinguished from the thirty lesser leaders in the frequency of their nominations in the particular areas of influence, except for business influence. The first generation leaders were also distinguished by a greater number of offices. General nominations of associations were also related to nominations in the specific areas of welfare, schools, and representation, as well as to the total general nominations received by the association officers and to the number of joint-officer links with other associations. First and second generation respondents made much the same associational nominations aside from the greater second generation tendency to nominate associations prominent in welfare. Association nominations were also related to the "distance" between the respondent and the association: his own associations and associations directly linked to them were disproportionately named. Four main issues were isolated. The number of leaders named for an issue was less than that for a specific issue area, in turn less than the number of general leaders named. Leaders overlapped little from issue to issue. Almost all issue leaders were also named as general leaders. Associations were rarely mentioned as influential in the issues; their activities seem to be confined to their own members as a rule. General influence was found to be a useful variable for both associations and leaders. It was closely related to more specific influence and to strategic location on communication channels formed by executive overlaps. Broadly, the thesis indicates that it is useful and feasible to approach Chinese communities with the techniques and findings developed for North American towns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyFrench-language works237,207