Friends, Foes and Partners: The Relationship between the Canadian Missionaries and Korean Christians in North-eastern Korea and Manchuria from 1898 until 1927
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the start of the 1920s the Korean Christian community in Hamgyeong Province and Manchuria had little control over the financial and educational policies of the Canadian Presbyterian missionaries. By the end of the decade the Presbyteries determined how the home funds would be spent on evangelical work and Korean church leaders sat on a Joint Board with the Canadians to aid in the management of the mission. The Canadian decision to share power with the Koreans was made out of necessity. Throughout the 1920s, students, elders, ministers and a large segment of the laity vigorously, sometimes violently, advocated for a transformation of mission policies. The Canadians became extremely fearful and concluded that to save the mission they would have to reform their methods. In the literature published on the mission, the ‘positive side’ of the story, namely the Canadian ability to empathise with the Koreans and their denouncements of the Japanese colonial regime in 1919 as well as 1920, has been emphasised. This article focuses on the less seemly nature of the Canadian–Korean relationship. It will examine the temporal factors that contributed to the Korean acceptance of missionary authority before 1919, their rejection of it in the 1920s and the attempts of the Canadians to bring order back to the mission compounds. The ultimate purpose of this study is to demonstrate that the Korean Christians were active agents who through their protests during the 1920s came to assume a prominent position within the mission.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".