Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reed Ueda and Conrad Edick Wright have compiled a series of eight essays first presented at a conference at the Massachusetts Historical Society in 2002. Despite what might be implied by the subtitle, there is no attempt by the editors to provide a sweeping view of the history of immigration in the state. Rather, their intention is to “offer important case studies, with national significance, of how newcomers and natives adjusted to each other and reshaped the boundaries of public interaction” (p. viii). Reed Ueda's essay, “Frameworks for Immigrant Inclusion,” traces changes in attitudes and policies from 1870 to 1965 regarding assimilation and naturalization from the perspective of national, state, and private agencies, on the one hand, and immigrants, on the other. Two essays concerning new arrivals in Worcester, Massachusetts, follow Ueda's piece. Janette Thomas Greenwood's study of community building by southern black migrants during the Civil War era and John F. McClymer's examination of the French Canadian community during the late nineteenth century present vivid and fascinating case studies of the developments that Ueda described in general terms. Though their stories differed in many respects, both groups had to deal with such issues as relations with the established community and with other ethnic groups, maintenance of their cultural heritage, and the extent to which they would embrace the culture of their new setting.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".