MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769063922 · doi:10.5070/t831007005

Excerpt from Brokering Belonging: Chinese in Canada’s Exclusion Era, 1885–1945

2011· article· en· W2769063922 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Lisa Rose Mar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transnational American Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of CambridgeMcGill UniversityTemple UniversityQueen's UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversitySage FoundationWoodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
KeywordsHistoryPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsDemographySociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brokering Belonging traces several generations of Chinese Canadian "brokers," the ethnic leaders who acted as intermediaries between the Chinese and Anglo worlds of Canada.Before the Second World War, many Chinese Canadians were illegal immigrants, and most could not vote. 1 Brokers therefore played an informal but necessary role as representatives of their community to the larger society during a period of anti-Asian sentiment and exclusion.Using new Chinese language evidence, my investigation of dramatic power struggles shows how Chinese immigrants became significant players in race relations and had an impact on policies that affected all Canadians and Americans.Chinese brokers' work offers a transnational perspective on the process of political integration.Most studies of foreign migrants' political integration focus on immigrants who could eventually become citizens.2 While this was the norm for European immigrants, policies in Canada and the United States did not allow Asian immigrants equal access to voting and naturalization privileges.3 Chinese brokers' use of power also reflected their roles as representatives of a migrant community that stretched across Canada, China, and the United States.Commonly, immigrant leadership has been conceived as domination of naive new arrivals by English-speaking merchants, labor contractors, interpreters, and professionals.4 Brokering Belonging conceives of transnational migrants' integration into settler societies in more pluralistic terms: it focuses on the changing political relations between ordinary people, their leaders, and their institutions in the Pacific world. 5 Canada implemented its first anti-Chinese immigration act in 1885, just as Chinese workers were completing the nation's first transcontinental railway.The first and second generation of brokers, backed by wealthy Chinese merchants, acted as representatives for the disenfranchised, establishing themselves among the community.These traditional brokers prioritized assuring a steady stream of Chinese immigrants.With corrupt or sympathetic partners in Anglo politics and business, the brokers helped many Chinese newcomers to evade anti-Chinese immigration laws.Even the legal route through Canada's borders was tightly controlled by these brokers and their allies in China.To this end, Chinese brokers often secured official immigration interpreter posts by making alliances with ruling party factions and by bribing politicians.6 Brokers also merged their Chinese clients' aspirations with British legal institutions.Chinese Canadians contended with laws and a justice system that frequently treated them unfairly.When Chinese appealed to Canadian and British Empire courts to rectify these wrongs, judges often upheld the white majority's right to discriminate against them.7 Despite these challenges, Chinese Canadians found ways to influence the larger legal culture.Chinese brought from China and the United States strong traditions of litigation, so they often turned to Canadian law to resolve disputes.Because British Columbia did not permit Chinese to practice law, Chinese legal interpreters worked as unofficial "Chinese lawyers" in legal negotiations that often expanded the Canadian state's influence in Chinese Canadian affairs.Chinese in the United States similarly dealt with popular demands for the rule of law and with racial barriers in the legal profession.8

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0160.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transnational American StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207