Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most statements about the immigration of Europeans since the war one meets the assumption that such immigrants, especially those who are regarded as beholden to the Australian Government, must become Australian as soon as possible, certainly within this generation and preferably within ten years. Consequently, official policy towards those immigrants over whom there is a large measure of government control is geared to high speed assimilation, a term which the ordinary man may not use but which is implied in his ideas that such immigrants must not form separate colonies, must speak English, must adopt Australian labour habits, etc. This policy seems natural, and it may come as a surprise for some people to learn that none of the other main immigrant accepting countries are following it. The U.S.A., with the longest experience of alien immigration, did hold a similar policy at one time but in view of the apparent consequences has now abandoned it. Canada, the Argentina^ and Brazil were never so optimistic and have always allowed assimilation several generations. Even in Israel, where the immigrants are already theoretically all one people, the authorities are careful to establish them in colonies according to country of origin. The U.S. experience is of some relevance to Australia today, for the fears of unabsorbed enemy minorities and the attitudes towards foreign immigrants which gained maximum expression in Australia in 1944-45 are very similar to those which held sway in the U.S.A. during the first world war. It was at that time thought that the old cultural differences could be rubbed off the immigrants by mixing them together enough, leaving the natural American man as the fairly uniform product. The rubbing-off worked, but we
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.007 |
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".