Farm settlement with imperfect capital markets: a life‐cycle application to Upper Canada, 1826–1851
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farm settlement, where borrowing is constrained, is addressed with a life‐cycle model. Because a pioneer farm must be cleared before becoming productive, the settler first accumulates in order to purchase supplies and maintain consumption during the initial years. Implications of the model are explored using data from Upper Canada, 1826–1851: age at settlement is delayed. Settlers eventually receive higher incomes than those who do not settle; rising life expectancy contributes to settlement; an immediate income is a prerequisite to settlement. Such findings conform to the experience of Upper Canada and other pioneer areas and may also illuminate aspects of migration. JEL classification: N31, J61 Colonisation agricole quand les marchés du capital sont imparfaits:une application du modèle du cycle de vie au Haut‐Canada, 1826–51. L'auteur examine le processus de colonisation agricole quand il y a contraintes sur les emprunts à l'aide d'un modèle de cycle de vie. Parce qu'un pionnier doit d'abord défricher avant que la ferme ne soit productive, le colon doit avoir préalablement accumulé un certain pécule afin de pouvoir acheter le matériel nécessaire et maintenir sa consommation durant les premières années de colonisation. On analyse les implications de ce modèle en utilisant les données pour le Haut Canada de 1826 à1851. Entre autres résultats, on note que l'âge où l'on s'installe est reporté; que ceux qui colonisent éventuellement reçoivent des revenus beaucoup plus élevés que ceux qui ne le font pas; que la croissance de l'espérance de vie tend à encourager la colonisation; et qu'une source immédiate de revenus est un prérequis à la colonisation. Ces résultats et certains autres sont conformes à ce que l'on observe dans le Haut Canada et dans les autres zones de colonisation, et il peuvent jeter un peu de lumière sur certains aspects du processus de migration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".