Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reveal the development of Chinese studies in selective Canadian universities through examining the remarkable careers of three middle-aged ethnic Chinese intellectuals. Design/methodology/approach This paper analyses the origin and growth of East Asian Studies programs in Canada by first describing the backgrounds of the three scholars. Why did Canadian universities accept them despite their Chinese origin? Findings Canadian universities are indeed the incubators of racial tolerance. Racism existed in the 1950s but was only confined to the collegial level. Universities generally welcomed a diversified representation of their payroll. While none of three academics founded East Asian Studies programs in their institutions, they had forcibly become their mascots and had lured more students into lifelong studies of the Far East. Despite the early fanfare of their recruitments, all three had become disillusioned with their employers as years passed. They felt their contributions were taken for granted and had shifted their career focuses elsewhere. The Asia-Pacific is still marginally focussed in the Canadian academe. Originality/value The three men and many others in the field have sowed the seed for the study of China and the East Asian region in Canada. It is up to future “East Asianists” to carry on this tradition that they had built in the twentieth century.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it