МІЖНАРОДНІ ТА МІЖКОНТИНЕНТАЛЬНІ МІГРАЦІЇ ЄВРЕЇВ У XIX – НА ПОЧАТКУ XX СТ. ЗА ПРАЦЯМИ В. В. ОБОЛЕНСЬКОГО (ОСИНСЬКОГО)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is based on the works of Soviet statistics W Obolensky. This paper analyzes the main international and intercontinental destinations for resettlement of Jews of the Russian Empire in the nineteenth – early twentieth century. We ere posted created with the scientist periodization of migration movements in a specified period of time. The most important causes of intercontinental emigration of the Jewish population in Russia and abroad were determined in this paper. Records have been kept since 1828 of persons, whether emigrants or ordinary travelers, whether citizens or aliens who entered or left European Russia. The data were elaborated by the Russian Customs authorities on the basis of the passport registers or, in the case of Austrian subjects, of identification cards. Until 1850 travelers who arrived from or departed to Russian Poland were recorded but in 1851 the customs barriers between Russian Poland and the rest of Russia were removed. Passenger traffic between the two districts thereafter was regarded as internal, and statistical facts concerning these currents of migration ceased to be Emigration to overseas countries is not distinguished in these statistics. They are concerned only with arrivals in and departures from European Russia, from and to Asia and continental Europe, without distinguishing emigrants proper from the mass of ordinary travelers. From the beginning the statistics paid close attention to the nationalities of alien travelers. In table 1111 will be found such a statement for the period 1828 to 1915, with an estimate of the resulting net balance. But no final conclusions can be drawn from the figures. The same authority showed the excess of citizens departing over those arriving and the excess of aliens arriving over those departing, concluding that there had been a net increase in population. The statistics about individuals presenting «short-dated cards» at the frontiers (tables U and VI) are even less complete, because checking these papers without seriously disturbing the traffic was very difficult. The statistics of German seaports furnish another method of ascertaining the volume of Russian emigration. They relate to emigration overseas and, after 1899, to the British Isles. For the post-war period German statistics also are serviceable, since they furnish totals for Russians, but full particulars are not available. Tables IV and V for Latvia, showing transit of Russians according to their origins and destinations, are also useful in this connection. Statistics about the number of migrants from pre-war or post-war Russia to Palestine (1922-24), South Africa (1913-24), Argentina (1857-1924), Brazil (1871-1924), Canada (1900-24), Cuba (1911-24), United States (1820-1924) and Australia (1902-24) will be found in the national tables for those countries. Statistics about the number of migrants returning to Russia from Argentina (1857-1924) and the United States (1908-24) will be found in the national tables for those countries. International migration as measured by current official statistics began soon after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The longest series in the following national tables commence, for the countries of immigration, with Canada (1816), United States (1820), Brazil (1820), and New South Wales (1825); and for the countries of emigration with the British Isles (1815), Austria (1819) and Norway (1821). Thus, within a decade after Waterloo national emigration statistics had been set up in several countries of Europe and national or colonial immigration statistics in parts of North America, South America and Australia. The roots of these mass movements, which began to be systematically recorded a century ago, run far back into the earlier period of colonization but the present study does not demand a survey of migration in that pre-statistical period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 it