Putting a Price on Culture: Ethnic Organisations, Volunteers, and the Marketing of Multiculturaly Festivals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cynthia Thoroski and Pauline Greenhill(1) University of Winnipeg Introduction: Ethnic Festival Tourism Last October 1998, Canadian Society for Traditional Music held its annual meeting and conference in Winnipeg. On first night, we had an informal buffet dinner at A Taste of India, a restaurant near University of Winnipeg, where conference was centred. As part of evening's celebrations, our restaurant hosts invited a group of young women to come and perform some traditional South Asian dances for us. Though we were told that this group frequently performed at Folklorama, it soon became clear that this was not slick, traditionally-packaged performance locals among us had come to expect at that annual ethnic The tape began with a loud, discordant, alternative music-type introduction, which would undoubtedly have been nixed for Folklorama, since it was not an exemplar of pure, authentic(2) south Asian cultural expression. But even when music settled into a more traditional-sounding arrangement, dancers approached their presentation quite informally. Though initially displaying some nervousness, they soon began performing for each other, directing facial gestures and movements within group to comment upon their own activities. They seemed particularly amused by each others' mistakes, and their enjoyment appeared to be compounded by odd situation of performance -- not enough room for them to move freely and properly, combined with a generally culturally illiterate audience. These young women performers clearly saw themselves as being asked to represent their but they constantly undermined this position with kind of horsing around and sarcastic commentary -- albeit in a subtle form -- well known to all who interact with North American teenagers. One of our colleagues, of South Asian origin herself, commented on how much fun it was to do those dances, and how it made her wish she was still young enough to do them. It did look like fun. Multicultural festivals are increasingly marketed to Canadians as a symbol of our much-celebrated ethnic diversity. Festivals such as Toronto's Caravan and Winnipeg's work to set Canadian ethnicities apart from one another, and from mainstream, in their exhibitions of clearly delineated authenticity and uniqueness. Such diversity allegedly sets Canadian culture apart from that of our neighbours in United States; ours, colourful patchwork quilt or mosaic, in contrast to theirs, homogenisation of American melting pot. Folklorama, held for two weeks every August since 1970, combines local boosterism with big corporate sponsorship to create a tourist event.(3) Various located at different venues throughout city -- mainly in ethnic society halls, community centres, and public education buildings -- represent ethnic, linguistic, national, and/or geographical groupings. This festival, which in words of its own promotion takes you down street and around world, bills itself in easy superlatives as Canada's greatest cultural celebration, and the world's largest multicultural festival. Ethnic, linguistic, national, and/or geographical groups are represented in a pavilion -- or, in many cases, in two or more pavilions, such as Pearl of Orient Pavilion and Philippine Pavilion-Nayong Pilipino; or Ireland/Irish Pavilion and Isle of Shamrock-Ireland Pavilion. One might suspect that presence of two pavilions indicates some political discord, or even heterogeneity in cultural presentation. However, is structured in such a way as to ensure that contrasts within and between groups are masked by common presentation of three elements. Although their website suggests that Folklorama gives every group a chance to release whatever they want to express to everyone about their culture, in fact, expressions are limited almost exclusively to music/dance, food/drink, and display and sale of crafts. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".