Indochine chic: Why is Vietnamese food so classy in Singapore? (Respond to this article at http://www.therai.org.uk/at/debate)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To someone from Sydney, Los Angeles, Paris or Vancouver there is something quite peculiar about the experience of eating Indochinese food in Singapore. In these former locations, it is largely present as an inexpensive ethnic cuisine whose high perceived authenticity and low cost are underwritten by communities of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Lao refugees and migrants. In Singapore, by contrast, Indochinese food is a chic, expensive, romantic, Frenchy, artsy, edgy haute‐cuisine. Given that the nation is Vietnam's second largest foreign investor, and that Ho Chi Minh City is a mere eighty minute budget flight away, why should it be that Vietnamese food is so rare and exotic a commodity in Singapore's multicultural culinary market? On the basis of participant observation, interviews conducted with restaurateurs and patrons, and electronic materials such as restaurant reviews and blogs, this paper will attempt to answer the question of just why Indochinese food signifies the way it does in Singapore.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".