MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412838366 · doi:10.5539/ass.v21n4p33

Evolving Representations of Chinese Laborers in Mahua Literature (1930s–1940s): The Case of “Shisheng”, a Supplement to Nanyang Siang Pau

2025· article· en· W4412838366 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huang Liqun, Lim Choon Bee, Ser Wue Hiong

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses primarily on the Chinese laborer-themed short stories published in the “Shisheng”, a supplement of Nanyang Siang Pau, to examine the representation and transformation of Chinese laborers in Mahua literature during the 1930s and 1940s. The portrayal of Chinese laborers in “Shisheng” went through two phases. The earlier era primarily depicted the deplorable conditions of Chinese laborers and the wealth gap after the outbreak of the Chinese resistance against Japan in 1937. It demonstrated a pronounced socialist consciousness by criticizing societal injustices and articulating aspirations for social reform. In contrast, the next phase redefined the image of Chinese coolies as patriotic vanguards by emphasizing their generous donations and enthusiastic participation in the boycott of Japanese goods. This resulted in a patriotic portrayal of Chinese laborers imbued with a strong “national salvation” ethos. The portrayal and evolution of Chinese laborers in “Shisheng” encapsulate the ideological shifts within the Mahua literary scene of the 1930s and 1940s, reflecting the profound influence that leftist and anti-Japanese national salvation literature had on Mahua society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0220.015
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicChinese history and philosophy→French-language works237,207→