(Per)Forming Ourselves and Others in Toronto’s Multicultural Caravan Festival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a first-generation Canadian, my home is filled with performances that gesture “back home” — or what my father calls the “old country,” a place that is only alluded to in the smells of the kitchen or when my mom forgets the English word and tells me to grab her a bunyak. As Dad sits in a sunny kitchen window, he reminisces about being back home in Croatia. “It’s like being home in Krk,” he says, referring to the home that he left almost fifty years ago, only returning for a few visits since then. Dad replays his memories for a very particular audience: his children and grandchildren. Although I’ve only been to Krk twice, Dad’s performances, albeit nostalgic and ideal, act as a touchstone for my perception of self and family history. By watching his performance, I become a part of a larger community and feel connected to a place and a people outside of Canada. At the same time, however, Dad’s performances also carry the hardships of immigration. The process of learning English was slow, and his accent remains an auditory reminder of the elements that refuse to assimilate to his new home, marking him as different, symbolically reflective of the ways he clings to the “old country” or rather, how the “old country” clings to him. Yet the idealized home Dad longs for does not actually exist except in his performances. Performing what I call the “homeland imaginary” signifies an incomplete relationship or communion with the “new country” as well as the “old country,” for both actor and audience. Dad’s performances are always marked by his partial assimilation to his new home, and I, in attending to his performance, am only partially connected to another place.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.002 |
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".