Reparation as Narrative Resistance: Displacing Orientalism and Recoding Harm for Chinese Women of the Exclusion Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le present article traite du prejudice subi par ies immigrants chinois de 1885 a 1947, dans le contexte historique des lois sur l'immigration au Canada. Durant cette periode, le gouvernement canadien a limite l'immigration chinoise par le truchement d'une capitation imposee a tous les Chinois entrant au Canada et, par la suite, par l'exclusion totale de l'immigration chinoise. La capitation prohibitive a empeche la majorite des Chinoises d'immigrer au Canada et a provoque la separation forcee des Chinoises de leurs conjoints au Canada, dans cette periode caracterisee par des privations extremes attribuables a la guerre civile en Chine et a la famine qui s'ensuivit. Les personnes qui ont paye ia capitation ont, plus tard, conteste les dispositions d'exclusion des lois sur l'immigration dans un recours collectif qui comptait tres peu de femmesune absence remarquee qui illustre la fafon dont ia loi incarne certaines experiences particulieres plutot que d'autres. Puisque la loi a ete concue pour repondre aux besoins de personnes qui semblent autonomes, la separation n'etait pas perdue comme un prejudice—un fait rendu plus acceptable dans le cas des Chinoises parce que la separation etait imposee a d' « Autres orientalisecs ». Les detournements de sens historiques qui ont etc construits afin de deshumaniser et de « de-juridiciscr » les Chinoises ont justifie le prejudice perpetre tout en le rendant invisible. Cet article examine les tons subis par ies Chinoises a l'epoque de l'exclusion et analyse ies theories feministes du droit ainsi que ies possibUites narratives de contestations judiciaires visant a reparer ies torts et a explorer ies possibilites de transformation grâce aux soiutions juridiques.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".