MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089190265 · doi:10.18357/ghr91202019344

"Whither Shall We Send Our Son?": A Prosopographical Analysis of Remittance Men in New Zealand

2020· article· en· W3089190265 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Graduate History Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoriographyProsopographyImmigrationScrutinyHistoryRemittanceMythologySubject (documents)GenealogySociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceClassicsLawLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article represents a unique exploration of the creation and lived experiences of British gentlemen exiled by family to the colonies during the nineteenth century. Known as remittance men, they constituted a small but consistent migrant type to British settler societies, and later became the subject of popular mythology. Remittance men have remained but footnotes in New Zealand historiography and their presence deserves greater scrutiny. Through prosopographical analysis, my research expands current knowledge of the historical contexts in which their identities were forged, and adds their stories to New Zealand's current historiography of the nation's early immigrants.
 Note: As part of this research, the author created an Excel spreadsheet containing data analysed for this article. Individuals interested in viewing the data should write and request a copy from the author via helen.leggatt@pg.canterbury.ac.nz

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.153 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it