The Growth of a Craft Labour Force: Montreal Leather Artisans, 1815‑1831
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study calls into question the view that immigration from the British Isles in the first half of the nineteenth century dramatically altered the ethnic composition of the urban crafts of Lower Canada and resulted in the marginalisation of French-Canadian artisans. Unlike earlier studies, which relied essentially on the snapshots provided by the manuscript censuses of 1831 and 1842, this case study combines a variety of sources in order to reconstitute the entire population of Montreal's leather trades between 1815 and 1831. The evidence provided by this important group of crafts shows that, while the British presence increased, it was primarily confined to the most transient elements of the anisan population. A mong craftsmen who settled in Montréal for extended periods of time, French Canadians remained dominant. Although their relative importance declined, their absolute numbers grew. Vital craft traditions ensured that skills were transmitted from father to son and that apprenticeship thrived. While the local ecomony was the major source of new manpower throughout this period, there was a steady increase in the flow of young men into Montréal from the surrounding countryside.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".