Other diplomacies and Canadianness: Hong Kong-resident Canadians and the Occupy Central and Umbrella Movement protests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the diplomatic practices of Hong Kong-resident Canadian nationals responding to the 2014 Occupy Central and Umbrella Movement. One of Hong Kong’s largest “foreign” populations and the second largest concentration of Canadians abroad, this population was mostly Hong Kong-born, dual nationals/residents and class privileged. Using an “other diplomacies” framework, the analysis examines how they represented Canadianness and identified/interpreted foreignness, practices with diplomatic characteristics even when performed by non-state actors. Drawing from 50 semi-structured interviews, the study found that in-betweenness and class shaped diplomatic practices. Interviewees often represented Canadianness as transnational/multi-jurisdictional, embodying liberal democratic values shared with Hong Kong and other jurisdictions/societies. Despite PRC government allegations that foreign forces and powers fomented the protests, most interviewees identified Canadian residents as politically non-foreign in Hong Kong and were broadly pro-protest. However, some disagreed with each other and the Canadian government over the reconciliation of business interests with representations of Canadianness. The findings, although tentative given data limitations, provide a rare glimpse of overseas Canadians’ diplomatic practices during Hong Kong’s ongoing, intensifying cycle of anti-government demonstrations. They suggest potential diplomatic and foreign policy challenges for the Canadian government confronting a rising PRC and underscore the need for more research on the political dimensions of Canadians abroad.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".