Chinatown for whom? Approaches to Municipal Policymaking in Chinatown: Comparing Calgary and Yokohama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As cities grow and build for the future, municipalities begin creating new policies- including policies targeted at Chinatowns. Karen Cho’s 2022 documentary “Big Fight in Little Chinatown”, highlights this exact issue, where municipal policy and community desires fail to align. When this happens, we see detrimental effects for Chinatown communities, such as displacement, gentrification, or other effects on the structure of the community. Chinatowns don’t accept this either. There are many examples of Chinatown communities standing up against developments seen as unfair, gentrifying, or disruptive to the fabric of these historic communities. That is not to say that Chinatowns don’t want to change. This begs the question: how can cities develop policies that actively support Chinatown communities to develop in a way that is beneficial for all?Previous literature has focused on many issues in the realm of Chinatown and development issues, such as urban planning, healthcare outcomes, and ociological issues. However, very few pieces have been written on policy, and none have been written on methods of policymaking when it comes to areas like Chinatown. Using a comprehensive literature review from a variety of academic disciplines and comparing approaches in Calgary and Yokohama, this capstone seeks to recommend methods of policymaking to avoid these detrimental effects of Chinatown communities. In reviewing the literature, there are two major themes that arise: a lack of proper and meaningful community consultation on the future of Chinatown, as well as use of blanket, city wide policies that don’t differentiate areas that don’t fit the traditional neighbourhood mould, such as Chinatown. This capstone makes the recommendation of adopting approaches to policymaking that include meaningful community engagement and consultation, as well as avoiding blanket development policies by creating plans that account for “areas of difference” such as Chinatown. By implementing these recommendations, development inequalities created by municipal policy can be avoided and communities can be engaged in the development that affects their everyday lives.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".