Digital Diaspora and National Image Building: A New Perspective on Chinese Diaspora Study in the Age of China's Rise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
is on the rise. A rising power has traditionally been thought of as a revisionist power by the status quo powers and neighbouring countries. There are still some disputes within the global community of China scholars about the speed and extent of China's rise. Most scholars' attention has focused on the question of whether an authoritarian and nationalistic China would adhere to international norms, and fully integrate itself into the existing global system. Therefore, Beijing must make efforts to establish a favourable national image (i.e., as a peaceful and responsible great power) in order to create a friendly international environment for its ascendancy. Moreover, compared to the rise of other powerful nations in history, China's current ascension has been complicated by a new but unpredictable factor that of the continuously growing Chinese diaspora, which consists of 38 million ethnic Chinese living outside of Greater China. In the post-Cold War world, the increased importance of national image building as part of foreign policy, and the formulation of new concepts such as transnationalism, the global information age and international broadcasting power have suggested alternative perspectives from which to approach diaspora studies. There is no consensus among the global community of China scholars on an apt description of the ethnic Chinese who live outside of Greater China, a region which is composed, of Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. The older term of Huaqiao refers to those Chinese who have been living outside of Greater China for many years, but still retain their Chinese citizenship. Obviously, this term is not strongly associated with new Chinese immigrants and foreign-born ethnic Chinese. Another term, that of overseas Chinese, refers to Chinese sojourners, Chinese subjects or nationals temporarily residing abroad, but excludes those who have become
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".