Misconception: The Relationship between the Chinese-English Daily Newspaper and The Chinese Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article challenges the popular misconception of the relationship between the two early Chinese newspapers printed in Vancouver, Wa-Ying Yat-Po ((The Chinese-English Daily Newspaper, 1906-1909) and Tai Hon Kong Bo (The Chinese Times, 1910-1992), which claims that Wa-Ying Yat-Po was the predecessor of Tai Hon Kong Bo, the latter functioning as the amplification of the former. Prevailing in scholarly books and articles, this misleading view has become the standard assessment of the affiliation between the two newspapers. In the same vein, some scholars favour the opinion that the inception year of Tai Hon Kong Bo should be pushed back to 1906, the year when Wa-Ying Yat-Po commenced publication. Contrary to the conventional discourse, this article concludes that the two newspapers are two independent media entities by a close examination of their particular agendas and objectives. Wa-Ying Yat-Po, we argue, deserves the recognition of an autonomous position in the history of Chinese diaspora media, and should not be treated as a part of Tai Hon Kong Bo. The claim that Tai Hon Kong Bo started in 1906 by a number of scholars effaces the distinct three-year existence of Wa-Ying Yat-Po, and helps erase a key historical intertwining of the early Chinese community with Christian missions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".