Tradition: Connecting the Past and Present A Case Study of Xintiandi in Shanghai
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tradition and modernisation are often seen as a binary opposition. In an urban environment, traditional built form seems incompatible to modern way of life, and the adaptation of traditional neighbourhoods to modern use often causes controversy. Nowadays, ideas about ‘what is tradition’ become shifting, and traditional townscape does not necessarily mean an obstacle to modernisation. This paper reveals how the role of traditional elements is played in China’s urban development. The case study of Xintiandi, Shanghai, where traditional townscape is restored, highlights the connection of the city’s past and present. Xintiandi is a successful yet controversial city renewal project, where Shanghai’s traditional housing form Shikumen is restored and put into adaptive uses. In the course of urban modernisation, the role of tradition as a representation of the connection between the city’s past and present deserves more study. This paper aims to add a perspective to the literature on the study of tradition. It argues for the diversity and fluidity of the ideas about tradition. In this view, tradition is not necessarily in dichotomy with, or opposite to modernisation; rather, tradition justifies the needs of modernisation and supplements its outcomes. The paper is developed in light of works on tradition by Shils, Hobsbawm, Giddens and others; The case study of Xintiandi shows what Old Shanghai tradition means to this city today, and how traditional elements are adapted and used in the course of urban modernisation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".