Ebb and flow: Canadian immigration policies and the making of Chinese Canadian identity, 1949-1989
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the ways in which Canadian immigration policies influenced the making of Chinese Canadian identity between 1949 and 1989, by focusing on three historic moments: the establishment of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the family reunification agreement between Canada and the PRC in 1973, and the Tiananmen massacre in 1989.I use these three historic moments to trace a state-community connection, and to show how state-community interaction on Canadian immigration policies shaped the perception of being Chinese in Canada.To clarify this process, my project brings two interrelated yet distinct concepts to bear in tracing the nuances of Chinese identity in Canada.The concept of "diasporic identity" draws attention to the way Chinese communities living abroad define and express their identities by building links between the local settler society and the ancestral homeland.The concept of "Chinese Canadian identity" draws attention to the way the Chinese in Canada developed their sense of belonging in Canada when the Canadian state met their needs in terms of diasporic identity.To these investigative ends, this thesis analyzes the responses of the Canadian state to key historical moments using government documents and parliamentary Hansards, and analyzes the responses of the Chinese in Canada using two Chinese Canadian newspapers: The Chinese Times and the Shing Wah Daily News.In this way, my project ties the changing nature of Chinese identity to events in the People's Republic of China, developments in state relations, and Canadian immigration policy at three historic moments.iii
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 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".