Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1846 and 1932 it was thinking that approximately 224.000 Dutches had emigrated from Europa.From which only 8.000 came to South America. Between 1880 1920 approximately 214.000 persons left Holland. Of this approximately 130.000 travelled to the United States representing 60.74 % of the whole of the migratory flow; 36.000 departed with course Asia representing 16.82 %, 30.000 settled themselves in Canada marking this way an approximate percentage of 14.01 %, 4.67 % approximately10.000 immigrants were doing the proper thing with destiny to South Africa and finally to South America there came 8.000, one percentage of 3.73 %. Inside the flow that divided towards South America, the migration was located in three countries: Argentina, Brazil and finally Chile. Inside this context, they fit very punctual questions on which you have turned the present investigation. ?How many Dutch, ineffect, had arrived to the Argentina and of that you depart from Holland they were proceeding?, ?why did they depart and how many of them had settled themselves in definitive form?, ?when did arrive the first members of the family Korstanje to Argentina?, ?which reasons did leave behind?, and finally where and how there adapted particularly the descendants from the first Korstanje couple? To fix the unit of analysiswas a simple task, on the one hand it was necessary describe as there removed to end the migratory Dutch flow in the section that goes from the year 1880 to 1930 in the Republic Argentina, then to reconstructthe particular motives that the Korstanje had for emigrating to the country, their first steps and their final settlement in the city of Buenos Aires.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".