© Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services, 2009 The Treatment of Japanese Canadians in the 1940s: A Social Work Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has been done on early social work practice in Canada, particularly as it pertains to social workers from racialized groups. The internment of Japanese Canadians during World War II is of particular interest as seen through the lens of social work discourse. Social workers on the political left were well aware of this racially-motivated internment and lent support to organizations that sought to address their two main concerns: recognizing compensation claims for confiscated property and fighting the deportation of Japanese Canadians. Amy Leigh, a social worker who organized welfare services for the interned Japanese Canadians, expressed a more politically liberal capitalist perspective. She believed it was crucial for the public to clearly understand the work of the British Columbia Security Commission, established to manage the relocation of Japanese Canadians, in order to correct views that the Japanese were either being “ill-treated or spoon-fed”.1 Leigh also encouraged the hiring of Kay (Kato) Shimizu by the BC Security Commission. A Nisei (2nd generation) Japanese Canadian social worker, Shimizu became politicized towards the left by the experience, one that was distinctly different from that of her Caucasian contemporaries in the
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.007 |
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".