Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chinese presence within the dominant Canadian host society has been one of struggle and triumph. Racial attitudes caused extreme forms of stereotyping and prejudice against the Chinese residing in Canada. Although many scholars discuss the history of racism against the Chinese in Canada, most leave the Chinese voiceless and do not consider the internal and external powers within the Chinese communities. The Chinese were not defenceless and by creating associations they were able to voice their opinions. Also, by aligning themselves to religious organizations and joining in the military effort, they were able to create their own identity and gain an even footing in the social hierarchy within Canada. Thus, Chinese Canadians have been in full control of creating their own cultural identity within diverse Chinese communities. Chinese associations were established soon after the arrival of the first Chinese settlers in Canada, notably the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association (CCBA) which dealt with numerous issues, charities, some of which provided housing, cultural celebration, and much more. The Chinese created a distinct culture, while at the same time becoming a part of Canada’s cultural mosaic. Despite deep-seated racial oppression, the Chinese Canadians were able to exercise social power by establishing the CCBA, creating associations and assimilating through religious and military affiliations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".