MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404050149 · doi:10.1177/27541258241296111

Chinatown, part five? ‘Capitalism with Asian values’ in Vancouver commentary on Elvin Wyly's ‘Regarding the Pain of (Indigenous) Others’

2024· article· en· W4404050149 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Justin Kh Tse

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogues in Urban Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinatownIndigenousCapitalismSociologyAsian americansGender studiesHistoryGerontologyAnthropologyPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineArchaeologyEthnic groupLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this commentary on Elvin Wyly’s ‘Regarding the Pain of (Indigenous) Others’, I comment on the absent ontology of Asian subjectivities in urban studies of neoliberal global cities. Wyly’s account of neoliberal Vancouver hellscapes frames racial formations and narratives of dispossession as formed by capital. Asian subjectivities, I argue in this commentary, are also flattened by narratives of capital into purely economic subjects, but what Wyly’s reading of Vancouver opens up, I also hope to show, is the possibility of tracing the complex life stories of Asian capitalist characters in Vancouver’s neoliberal hellscape. In this way, Wyly avoids the trap of the previous urban studies entries in the post-Chinatown ilk, where global cities are depicted as being shaped by capital with the complexity of Roman Polanski’s Chinatown, but ironically have neither ‘Asian’ nor ‘Chinese’ characters in them that are subjectively complex. Paying attention to complex Asian subjectivities in neoliberal cities allows for further questioning of the relationship between race and capital in contemporary urban studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0310.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogues in Urban ResearchSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207