MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009516252 · doi:10.1080/21533369.2001.9668313

Work in progress: Indirect passage from Europe Transmigration via the UK, 1836–1914

2001· article· en· W2009516252 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Maritime Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicColonialism, slavery, and trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Political scienceEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1836 and 1914, over thirty million European immigrants entered the United States of America. 1 Millions of others arrived in Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Argentina.They left in search of freedom and opportunity of a degree not found in their native Europe.The Europe they left behind was suffering from the effects of rapid urbanisation, agrarian depression and population increase.Life was difficult enough without the extremes of harvest failure or religious persecution, factors that encouraged would-be migrants into taking the decision to migrate to the other side of the world -when most had never ventured beyond their provincial borders.Theodore Blegen, Irving Howe and Philip Taylor have all described those areas within America in which these European immigrants eventually settled. 2 Charlotte Erickson and William Jones have studied the millions of British emigrants who left Britain during this period. 3Others, such as Thomas Appleton, Francis Hyde, Laurence Dunn, and Wilton Oldham, have highlighted the role played by powerful British shipping lines such as Allan, Cunard, Union and Castle, and White Star, in the movement of millions of migrants across the Atlantic and to the southern hemisphere. 4 The existing historiographical works provide a detailed explanation of how the majority of European immigrants arrived in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Quebec, Cape Town, Sydney, Buenos Aires and Auckland and the patterns that emerge through the analysis of their journey to the 'New World'.The purpose of this paper, and my Ph.D., is to examine those European migrants who made the decision to travel to the US and further afield indirectly via the UK.Such indirect migration represented a sizeable portion of the total number leaving Europe, particularly of those leaving the northern European countries of Finland, Germany, Norway, Poland, Russia and Sweden.Though 30 million European immigrants entered the US between 1836 and 1914, up to five million transmigrants, or 20 per cent of the total number of immigrants, passed through the UK.The migrants entered the UK via the eastern ports of Harwich, Hull, Grimsby, Leith, London, Newcastle and West Hartlepool.From these ports of arrival the transmigrants were then transported by train to the ports of Glasgow, Liverpool, London and Southampton, from where they could embark on the next stage in their journey.Though London served as the main port of entry for the millions of European immigrants entering the UK, it was the Humber ports of Hull and Grimsby that handled the majority of the transmigrants travelling via the UK -because the journey from the Humber to Liverpool was the shortest route in terms of time and distance to travel across the country.Of the five million European migrants who did arrive in the country between 1836 and 1914, over three million (or sixty per cent), did so via the Humber ports of Hull and Grimsby. 1

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Maritime ResearchSame topicColonialism, slavery, and tradeFrench-language works237,207