Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigration to and through central Canada increased substantially in the middle decades of the nineteenth century. In response to some of the problems associated with this mass migration, and in an effort to stimulate more of the 'right' kind of settlement, state-funded immigration agencies were established at all major ports and urban reception centres across the region during this period. To date, most of the literature on this subject has focused upon the state's management of migrants in Lower Canada (at Montreal, Quebec, and Grosse-Île) and upon the response of government officials to the period's major epidemics (cholera and typhus). This article uses Toronto as a case study to trace the evolution of the state's interaction with migrants from a different starting point. It emphasizes the importance of the 1820-80 period — a period in which major state initiatives were put in place to regulate the flow of immigration more effectively. It underlines the fact that the state consisted of multiple, frequently competing layers of authority and power during the period of transition from colonies to nation. Finally, the study of Toronto highlights that the intersections of different state levels (municipal, provincial, imperial, federal) did not constitute an especially monolithic state regulatory response during this period, but rather more of a labyrinth whose changing features could radically affect the individual experiences of migrants during these years. Le milieu du dix-neuvième siècle a vu l'immigration s'accroître substantiellement au Canada central. En réponse à certains problèmes associés à cette migration de masse et dans le but de susciter davantage de « bons » types d'établissement, des agences d'immigration financées par l'État ont été établies dans tous les principaux ports et centres d'accueil urbains de la région pendant cette période. À ce jour, la plupart des écrits à ce sujet ont ciblé la gestion par l'État des migrants au Bas-Canada (à Montréal, Québec et Grosse-Île) et la réponse du gouvernement aux grandes épidémies de choléra et de typhus. Prenant Toronto comme étude de cas, l'article retrace l'évolution de l'inter-action de l'État avec les migrants à partir d'un nouveau point de départ. Il insiste sur l'importance des années 1820-80, une période dans laquelle d'importantes initiatives publiques furent mises en pratique pour mieux gérer le flot d'immigration. Il rappelle par ailleurs que l'État comprenait des niveaux d'autorité et de pouvoir nombreux et souvent concurrents durant la période du passage du statut de colonie à celui de pays. L'étude du cas torontois souligne enfin que l'entrecroisement des différents niveaux de gouvernement (municipal, provincial, impérial, fédéral), loin de générer une intervention monolithique de la part de l'É tat, a plutôt produit une sorte de labyrinthe dont le tracé changeant a pu radicalement affecter les expériences individuelles des migrants pendant ces années.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".