MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135348496

Negotiating heritage: cultural identity, community practice, and preservation politics in Toronto’s Chinatown

2025· other· en· W7135348496 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Di Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinatownGrassrootsNegotiationPoliticsGentrificationOpposition (politics)Identity (music)Cultural heritageContext (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis investigates the impact of historic preservation policies and grassroots community efforts on the cultural identity of Toronto's Chinatown. As urban redevelopment shapes the neighborhood, questions arise about whether preservation protects culture or merely stabilizes architecture. The study explores how preservation is negotiated in a diasporic context through archival research, field observations, and a series of semi-structured interviews with residents, business owners, artists, and organizers. Key findings indicate a disjunction between government-led preservation frameworks and community perceptions of cultural value. Archival records, including the 1962 meeting between Chinese leaders and city officials, reveal the longstanding tension between development and cultural continuity. More recent cases, such as the opposition to mural projects by Friends of Chinatown Toronto, further highlight community resistance to top-down strategies perceived as "artwashing" or symbolic tokenism. The research emphasizes that cultural identity in Chinatown is not solely rooted in the physical environment but also in people's lived experiences, memories, and practices. The thesis reframes preservation as an ongoing negotiation rather than a static act by centering oral histories and grassroots activism. It ultimately argues for a more inclusive, community-responsive approach to heritage that prioritizes cultural sustainability over aesthetic or economic motives.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania)French-language works237,207