‘The Transnational Identities of the Global South Asian Diaspora in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, and South Africa, 1900s-1940s’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article surveys the South Asian communities in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, and South Africa, between the 1900s and 1940s. Specifically, it explores in each case study, whether South Asian migrants used the rhetoric of being British subjects. In addition, the article also considers whether the experience of living in predominantly majority white countries at the time encouraged South Asian communities, of different ethnicities, cultures, and faiths, to create a pan-South Asian identity. It shows that South Asian migrants in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, and South Africa did indeed use the rhetoric of their status as British subjects. However, this began to shift in South Africa from the 1930s onwards. This was primarily because this status had not done very much to protect South Asians in South Africa against increasing restrictions upon their lives by the white dominated Union governments and even the establishment of the beginnings of segregation. The fact that the South Asian community there was also the longest established, meant South African born South Asians also did not have an affinity with their parents’ British Indian subject status. Living in predominantly white majority countries did also generally lead to the creation of a pan-South Asian identity amongst the South Asian communities in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, and South Africa. Common experiences of discrimination and prejudice encouraged disparate groups to put aside their differences and work together to combat these. This was quite a contrast to the situation in South Asia at the time, especially increasingly in terms of faith.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".