Ideology, Identity, and a New Role in World War Two: A Case Study of the Canadian Missionary Dr. Richard Brown in China, 1938-1939
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian churches began to send their organized, large-scale, and financially supported missionaries to China in the late 1880s. 2 Even though that was later than most Western countries, from the peak time in 1920s to the great retreat in late 1940s the number of Canadian missionaries in China was ranked only next to the ones of America and British origins.3 The missionaries' activities reached almost all of China.They accomplished some major projects, such as the creation of Christian universities, middle schools, hospitals, and churches.4 In missionary fields such as Taiwan, Henan, and Sichuan, the recognizable identity of Canada as a nation and the identities of denominational churches and famous missionaries gave the various Canadian missionary groups a role in influencing Canadian-Chinese relations.5 Before official diplomatic relations were established in 1942 between the Republic of China and Canada, missionaries were the main Canadian residential population in China and the main envoys among peoples and the two nations.Generally speaking, for a changing world system in the modern age of overseas expansion, missionaries played roles as "advance agents" of imperialism or the "brokers of a global cultural exchange" by contributing to the modernization process of host countries.6 Then "Christianization" became Western countries' ideology and the motivation of their foreign policy-makers and missionaries for overseas expansion.Christian progressivism and pacifism, in some degree, stimulated Western soldiers, missionaries, diplomats, and traders in
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".