Exclusion and New Contact Zones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exclusion and contact zones can interact in various ways. In this article, I consider Japanese Canadian resettlement from coastal British Columbia’s one-hundred-mile exclusion zone to the Grand Forks area in 1942. Because their circumstances brought them into close proximity with Doukhobor Canadians, with whom they shared some sense of persecution (albeit for different reasons and in varied ways), Japanese Canadians’ prohibition from living or working within the City Limits of Grand Forks created new contact zones. There was some sense of shared persecution from the mainstream. Some Doukhobors rented out their extra houses to Japanese Canadians or hired them as farm labour, and many Doukhobors and Japanese Canadians went to school together and became friends. The Doukhobors are recognized for helping the Japanese Canadians during World War II after they received permits to move from the B.C. Security Commission in 1942. The story of Grand Forks helps to show the varied circumstances and challenges that Japanese Canadians faced during the Second World War as well as how new types of contact zones between Japanese Canadians and Doukhobors emerged. Indeed, this article demonstrates that contact zones do not always involve those with considerably more power than others, but can also involve different oppressed peoples.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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".