Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, the Toronto neighbourhood commonly known as Little Jamaica has experienced gentrification through the construction of the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit. This gentrification has perpetuated social and economic inequalities affecting the Caribbean diaspora in Little Jamaica. Urban planning tools, such as the Heritage Conservation District, have been central to the effort to preserve and protect the distinctive culture in Little Jamaica. Yet community members recognize these measures as inadequate to curb gentrification and reduce economic inequality. I argue that an analysis of gentrification only as a matter of urban planning fails to account for the way that the local community takes up cultural forms, like food, to resist gentrification. Though food is widely recognized as a means of constructing identity and building community in diaspora, less attention is paid to the political implications of food’s social power. Drawing on interviews with community members and local activists, this essay examines how the Caribbean community in Little Jamaica constructs cultural identity through food, highlighting a tension between authenticity and hybridity that exists within this cultural identity. I conclude that, because food produces cultural identity and community, food and food spaces may play a role in communities’ resistance to gentrification and inequalities in the urban sphere.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".