Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most Canadians have been proud of Canada’s “cultural mosaic”, benefiting from the contributions of the various ethnic and cultural communities in this country. This value derives from Canada’s background as a nation built on immigration. After Prime Minister Trudeau's "Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework," at the House of Commons in 1971, Canada has become home to a more diverse population of readers and writers. The country's literature has been strongly influenced by international immigration. Each ethnic group has brought to Canada stories of its own background, as well as its own literary genres. Similarly, with the arrival of new Chinese immigrants during the past several decades, Chinese immigrants’ literature, including writings in Chinese, English and French started to appear and to develop in Canada. \nThis article discusses briefly the development of Chinese Canadians’ literature in Canada, the characteristics of Chinese immigrants’ writings, and some literary organizations in Canada which help Chinese writers to communicate and to exchange ideas. Finally, the article examines the collection status of Chinese Canadians’ writings and offers some suggestions to reinforce the collection in this field.加拿大作为移民国家，是一个承认与保留多元文化的社会，这为各族裔保留自己文化与传统提供了 \n较为优越的环境。1971 年，杜鲁多总理在国会中特别宣布了在英法双语的架构下推行多元文化，从 \n国家政策上明确了移民保障各自祖裔文化的权利。近年来，华人不仅成为了加拿大最大的移民群体， \n而且移民中受过高等教育，英法语基础良好的文学人才也在不断涌现。此外，随着许多中国移民在 \n经济和生活方面建立了较为稳定的基础，因此有机会与条件从事文学写作，将自己的经历和感受表 \n达出来。 \n本文简要地回顾华人文学的发展并介绍一些有代表性的作家，作品及其收藏状况，分析加华文学发 \n展的特点，以及加华文学在读者中引起的关注。本文作者对目前加拿大图书馆收藏华人文学的状况 \n进行了调查，并提出一些加强这方面馆藏的建议。
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".