Bibliographic record
Abstract
\n\t\t\t\t\tThis paper focuses on a unique group of British emigrants in their double migration experience from Wales to Patagonia in the second half of the nineteenth century and thence to Canada or Australia in the early twentieth. The history of the Welsh Patagonian settlements in the Chubut Valley of Argentina and the Andes foothills has been extensively documented. Less is known about the two subsequent migrations from Patagonia to Canada in 1902, and from Patagonia to Australia between 1910 and 1915. What distinguishes these movements is that, in each case, the settlers migrated as a group and placed a high priority on taking up adjoining land. In their three adopted countries they established discrete Welsh communities, some more enduring than others. <br /><br />There is a general consensus that the initial move from Wales to Patagonia in 1865 was for nationalistic, cultural and linguistic reasons but for those who followed later, economic motives were more common. By the time of the migration from Patagonia to Canada in 1902, there was no illusion that Welsh nationalism could be preserved intact or autonomy guaranteed. Historians dispute the primary motivation for this particular move, some arguing that socio-economic and political factors in Patagonia were paramount, others that it resulted from inducements and political manoeuvrings from Canada and Great Britain. What is clear is the desire of the settlers to return to a country 'under a British flag'.<br /><br />This paper addresses these issues relating to the Welsh Patagonian migration to Canada in the context of a comparison with the migration to Australia some years later. Such a comparative analysis has not previously been undertaken. Notions of identity and an erstwhile &lsquo;Britishness&rsquo; are explored, in terms of the migrant&rsquo;s sense of self and the political implications of citizenship, military service, reception and assimilation in the<br />host societies.<br /><br />\n\t\t\t\t
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".