Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1960, as part of the early People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) cultural diplomacy, a troupe of almost one hundred Chinese performers and officials visited Canada, where they were widely identified as the “Peking Opera.” This was the high Cold War, ten years before Canada would recognize the PRC. Internal government documents show that granting permission for the opera visit constituted a considerable shift in Canadian policy, allowing a large-scale exchange with Communist China at a time when it was not possible for such a tour to visit the United States. For China, visits of performing arts groups were a major part of international diplomacy. For Canadian impresarios, hosting the Peking Opera was a way of legitimizing their festivals and theatres internationally. Among Chinese Canadian communities, reactions to the visit showed that the pendulum had begun to swing away from Taipei and toward Beijing, and for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the tour members were suspicious figures to be put under close surveillance as they interacted with Canadians. Glimpsed from these varying perspectives, the tour shows how the cultural isolation of the PRC was coming to an end as early as 1960, even in North America, and prefigures China’s present soft power push.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".