Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the decennial U.S. census figures from 1900 were made public, they showed the number of Canadian-born living in the United States as 1,179,922, or 22 percent of Canada's entire population.Adding their U.S.-born children, the number more than doubled, equalling 54.8 percent.1 At roughly the same time the Canadian census of 1901 was showing that 13 percent of the Dominion's population that year consisted of foreign-born people, some from the United States, the majority from Europe.These rather simple figures are very suggestive of what Marcus Hansen and John Brebner called "the mingling of the Canadian and American peoples," while simultaneously capturing a striking aspect of the history of North Atlantic and intracontinental migration and in particular the role that Canada played in the international circuits of labor and migration.2Migration from British North America (which later became the Canadian Dominion) into the American republic has marked continental history throughout much of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.As early as the 1830s British colonial authorities expressed deep concern for "the exodus of young people from Lower Canada," and soon French Canadian elites employed the expression "exode" to denounce the conditions that pushed many thousands of their young people to work in the United States.3The same expression would later resound in many districts of Atlantic Canada, as county after county was depopulated.4In many ways this continental southward flow of population and labor can be best understood by adopting a regional scale of observation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.003 |
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".