Inclusion and Exclusion of Migrants in the Multicultural Realm of the Habsburg "State of Many Peoples"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigration by foreign workers, entrepreneurs, master craftsmen and tradesmen, journeymen and merchants, as well as seasonal regional labour migration within individual states and across national borders, has been a tradition that goes far back into the Early Modern Era. Artisans, journeymen, and apprentices, a particularly mobile group, formed the major part of the foreigners in Vienna in the preindustrial era. Aside from this artisanal migration during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Habsburg Monarchy recruited labourers from other areas of the empire or from abroad, particularly those skilled in luxury crafts and textile production. Over the course of the nineteenth century, these were followed by industrial pioneers and workers. Migration was not only concentrated on Vienna, but extended to smaller towns and villages of the newly developed industrial regions of the Habsburg Monarchy. Integration into the “new” society was no easy matter, for labourers or entrepreneurs. Immigrant women and men were kept under close scrutiny by municipal authorities and faced discrimination from local laws and native-born residents. A change of residence clearly led to one’s sense of being a foreigner, both in one’s own perception and that of the “others”, but evidence shows that the concept of “foreignness” is a variable construct that changes according to the political, economic, and social situation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".