Comparative Studies on Development History of Chinese Diasporic Media in the West
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares and presents the similarities in the development of Chinese diasporic media in Western countries, especially focusing on the influence of the Chinese diaspora and the homeland political economy, from the past to the present. An investigation was conducted on the research sample-the Chinese diaspora and diasporic media in Australia and New Zealand through documentary and field research. The research results suggest that the transformation of sub-Chinese groups (from Hong Kongese to the mainlanders) and Greater China’s political economy simultaneously determine the readership, advertisements, ownership, as well as media content from the early 19th century to the present. Subsequently, comparisons of the development of the Chinese diasporic media in the US, Canada, and Western Europe suggest the same two influential factors. Furthermore, the results of the findings show that contemporary Chinese diasporas and the mainland political economy impact are two of the most influential factors in the boom of overseas Chinese digital media. Overall, although Chinese diasporic media are varied and diverse, their development is determined by two external factors: the Chinese diaspora and the homeland. These findings could serve as a reference that contributes to both the diasporic media industry and research.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".