The Assistance of Canada and the Polish Diaspora in Canada to Polish Immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1980s and 1990s, Canada accepted more than 115,000 Polish immigrants. Some of them went through refugee camps in Western Europe, some arrived in Canada from the U.S., and there were also those who came directly from Poland. Th is great infl ux of Poles to Canada was caused by a confl uence of factors. Th e most vital was obviously the economic and political situation in Poland, but Canada's immigration policy also played a signifi cant role, particularly the new regulations enacted in 1978. Th ey gave temporary preferences for East-European Self-Exiled Persons -those who left the Communist bloc and could not or did not want to return to their home countries. It is worth emphasizing that the Self-Exiled class formally existed in Canada until as late as 1990. Moreover, the new Canadian regulations enabled admitting immigrants who were sponsored by Canadian residents. Th is allowed the Canadian Polish Congress (CPC), following the1981 agreement with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to act as a guarantor to persons and institutions bringing in immigrants. With the cooperation of the CPC, ethnic organizations, and Roman Catholic Church institutions, a network of Polish information and aid centers was established in Canada. Th ey were actively supporting the Canadian system of assistance for new immigrants, helping the newly arrived to adapt to life in a new country.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".