MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162660614 · doi:10.59236/emro.v24i10a7874

Tale of Three Chinatowns

2022· article· W7162660614 on OpenAlex
Patrick Crowley

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Media Reviews Online · 2022
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Ethnicity, and Economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinatownNarrativeImmediacyGentrificationAppropriationWonderChinese americansSpectacleCasual

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributed by Good DocsProduced by Penny Lee and Lisa MaoDirected by Lisa Mao2021, Streaming, 85 mins There are many questions posed and answered implicitly in Lisa Mao’s A Tale of Three Chinatowns. But perhaps the one that best encapsulates the overall narrative sweep of the film is explicitly articulated by Prof. Andrew Leung of the University of Massachusetts-Boston, one of the throughline academic voices in the film: “The central question that we have to answer is ‘who is Chinatown for?’” This film uses three Chinatowns as case studies in the challenges that all Chinatowns face, namely gentrification and the appropriation of Chinese culture while Chinese American communities are priced out of the neighborhoods that they built. To get to this general thesis, the film traces a general history of the development of Chinatowns west of the Mississippi and then tracks the more specific histories of Chinese American communities in Boston, Washington D.C., and Chicago. This history is eloquently told through first-hand interviews with community members who grew up in these areas during the 1950s through the 1970s. Copious archival family and personal photographs impart an immediacy and human connection to these verbal memories of generational entrepreneurship, community building, social stigmatization by the majority, and the day-to-day cadence of neighborhoods transformed and, in the case of Washington D.C., arguably almost erased. The narrative uses some important commonalities (e.g. long-term displacement of original location; importance of community for supporting each other and newly arrived immigrants, et al.) both to throw into contrast differences that have affected the long-term success of each city’s Chinatown and also to draw a strong argument for the idea that each of the case studies is at a different stage of crisis. Washington D.C. represents a once-vibrant Chinatown almost hollowed out by the creation of a convention center and by corporate sponsors—a Chinatown where few Chinese Americans can afford to live or do business and that no longer has an active immigrant community. Chicago presents a Chinatown whose current location has for a long time left it insulated from pressures and has succeeded in growing and forming a strong, cohesive, and politically active community with active mutual aid societies. Boston’s Chinatown is framed as being at a community crisis point, a community that already had to fight for its identity during the high point of urban renewal in America and a community that has been and still is working to be very politically active in protecting social services for and in advocating for affordable housing for current residents and arriving immigrants. While this film gives a great deal of time, thought, and voice to each of the case study cities, Boston ends up being perhaps most central to the possible thesis question of whom Chinatown is for, Chinese and, more widely, Asian Americans and immigrants or wealthy property developers and the largely White surge of inhabitants in from suburbs. Had the other cities not been so thoughtfully documented, this might be a criticism, but in context, it proves a very strong rhetorical strategy. As it is, the deftly interwoven stories of long-time inhabitants and modern immigrants in each city strengthen this final observation on Boston's predicament, but work to show that, in the end, Boston’s Chinatown is emblematic of the struggles that all Chinatowns have faced, are facing, and will face. This documentary is extremely well produced and filmed. The narrative is complex, rich, and persuasive. Mao does an amazing job weaving the various strands of visual and audio information together. The highlight is the personal photographs spanning the 1940s to the 1970s which are carefully woven into the personal remembrances which form the heart of the film. These voices and the accompanying photographs act as evocative primary sources and welcome the viewer into experiences that can be both radically personal and universal. This film is highly recommended. Beyond its immediate and obvious use to Asian American Studies programs, I feel that this is the kind of documentary that would be useful for institutions with Urban Planning and Political Science strengths and could be crucial viewing in lower division coursework on American History and Cultural Studies. I also feel that this documentary could fit very appropriately in an advanced middle or high school class. Awards:Best Feature Documentary 2021, Gold, Television, Internet & Video Association of DC; Feature Documentary Award 2021, Toronto International Women Film Festival; Audience Award 2021, Boston Asian American Film Festival; Best Documentary 2021, Montgomery International Film Festival

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.297 · 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