Invisibility and selectivity. Introduction to the special issue on Dutch overseas migration in the nineteenth and twentieth century
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
InvIsIbIlIty and selectIvItyIntroduction to the special issue on Dutch overseas emigration in the nineteenth and twentieth century Abstract -Invisibility and selectivity. Introduction to the special issue on Dutch overseas emigration in the nineteenth and twentieth centuryThe contributors to this special issue describe the emigration of people from the Netherlands to the most important overseas destinations (the usa, Canada and Australia) in the nineteenth and the twentieth century.Part of the Dutch (overseas) emigrants formed strongly separated communities.Dutch emigrants were also rather invisible.In North America we see a combination of separateness and invisibility, in Australia mainly invisibility.Both in the nineteenth and in the twentieth century, migration was highly selective (with differences according to religion, class, ethnicity and gender).Only in the twentieth century (and especially after 1945) there was a strong influence of government policy on migration.In this issue, the comparison of emigration from one country -the Netherlands -to several destinations and the comparison over time show the influences of the societal context of the country of origin on the formation of Dutch emigrant communities.At a recent conference, organised by the Dutch Centre on Migration Studies, it was concluded that Dutch emigration is under-researched. 1 This special issue is the result of a call for papers in response to this observation, and attempts to fill at least part of this void.2 It presents five studies on Dutch » Marlou Schrover and Marijke van Faassen overseas emigration in the nineteenth and twentieth century, and looks at migrant community formation from the perspective of emigration.This issue does not attempt to deal with Dutch emigration or the formation of migrant communities on the whole, but takes a less ambitious approach focussing on one cluster of aspects that influenced migrant community formation: how the situation in, and policies of the country of origin, and responses to that in the countries of settlement, affected community formation.The very large literature on factors that influence the formation of immigrant communities and their continuation over time mentions as important: the size of the migrant population, its homogeneity in terms of regional origin and religion, the sex ratio and age structure of the migrant population, the various forms of capital of the migrants, (perceived) differences between migrants and the dominant group in the country of settlement, the duration of the migration process (arrival within a short time span versus over decades or centuries) and its temporary or permanent nature, the motives of migrants (forced, economic, or family migration), and the economic and political opportunity structure of the country of settlement.3 A complete study of community formation requires an examination of two societal contextsthat of origin and that of settlement -but in most research the society of origin is ignored.4 In this issue we look at how community formation was influenced by what happened before migration, how the emigration was prepared, how migrants prepared themselves and were monitored on their journey, and how and by whom they were first received in their countries of settlement.All authors in this issue address this topic in combination with some of the other factors mentioned above.We analyse the effects of the country of origin on community formation by making comparisons over time and between migrants from the same country -the Netherlands -to several destinations.This divergent/convergent approach has been strongly advocated, but has not been pursued often, and certainly not for Dutch emigration.5 All authors in this issue are -not by coincidence -either themselves Dutch emigrants, or hail from Dutch emigrants in a near or distant past.Their knowledge of Dutch society and language, and 3. A good overview of theories is provided in: Richard Alba and Victor Nee, Remaking the American mainstream.Assimilation and contemporary immigration (Cambridge Mass.2003).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,054 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».