Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter documents the rise of Cantonese opera theater in New York City from the mid-nineteenth century through the 1920s. By the mid-1920s, the New York theaters became a nodal point of the performing network linking San Francisco, Los Angeles, and elsewhere, sharing many of its talented performers. In New York's Chinatown, opera was an art form that united spectacle, drama, local and visiting talents, regional musical tastes, and musical tradition into a vibrant whole. At the height of its golden age, Chinese theater had taken its place in a city with a long and prestigious tradition in the theatrical and performing arts. Two theaters were established during this period: Jock Ming On and Lok Tin Tsau. The former arrived New York City from Vancouver, while the latter via Toronto and Boston. In 1927, the two merged to form Yong Ni Shang Theater. Many performers discussed in previous chapters reappear in this chapter. In addition, the chapter discusses the relation between Peking opera star, Mei Lanfang’s US tour and Chinatown theaters. Finally, through a close analysis of the phonograph record advertisement, the chapter reflects on the connection of Cantonese opera and the community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".