Invisibility and selectivity. Introduction to the special issue on Dutch overseas migration in the nineteenth and twentieth century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
InvIsIbIlIty and selectIvItyIntroduction to the special issue on Dutch overseas emigration in the nineteenth and twentieth century Abstract -Invisibility and selectivity. Introduction to the special issue on Dutch overseas emigration in the nineteenth and twentieth centuryThe contributors to this special issue describe the emigration of people from the Netherlands to the most important overseas destinations (the usa, Canada and Australia) in the nineteenth and the twentieth century.Part of the Dutch (overseas) emigrants formed strongly separated communities.Dutch emigrants were also rather invisible.In North America we see a combination of separateness and invisibility, in Australia mainly invisibility.Both in the nineteenth and in the twentieth century, migration was highly selective (with differences according to religion, class, ethnicity and gender).Only in the twentieth century (and especially after 1945) there was a strong influence of government policy on migration.In this issue, the comparison of emigration from one country -the Netherlands -to several destinations and the comparison over time show the influences of the societal context of the country of origin on the formation of Dutch emigrant communities.At a recent conference, organised by the Dutch Centre on Migration Studies, it was concluded that Dutch emigration is under-researched. 1 This special issue is the result of a call for papers in response to this observation, and attempts to fill at least part of this void.2 It presents five studies on Dutch » Marlou Schrover and Marijke van Faassen overseas emigration in the nineteenth and twentieth century, and looks at migrant community formation from the perspective of emigration.This issue does not attempt to deal with Dutch emigration or the formation of migrant communities on the whole, but takes a less ambitious approach focussing on one cluster of aspects that influenced migrant community formation: how the situation in, and policies of the country of origin, and responses to that in the countries of settlement, affected community formation.The very large literature on factors that influence the formation of immigrant communities and their continuation over time mentions as important: the size of the migrant population, its homogeneity in terms of regional origin and religion, the sex ratio and age structure of the migrant population, the various forms of capital of the migrants, (perceived) differences between migrants and the dominant group in the country of settlement, the duration of the migration process (arrival within a short time span versus over decades or centuries) and its temporary or permanent nature, the motives of migrants (forced, economic, or family migration), and the economic and political opportunity structure of the country of settlement.3 A complete study of community formation requires an examination of two societal contextsthat of origin and that of settlement -but in most research the society of origin is ignored.4 In this issue we look at how community formation was influenced by what happened before migration, how the emigration was prepared, how migrants prepared themselves and were monitored on their journey, and how and by whom they were first received in their countries of settlement.All authors in this issue address this topic in combination with some of the other factors mentioned above.We analyse the effects of the country of origin on community formation by making comparisons over time and between migrants from the same country -the Netherlands -to several destinations.This divergent/convergent approach has been strongly advocated, but has not been pursued often, and certainly not for Dutch emigration.5 All authors in this issue are -not by coincidence -either themselves Dutch emigrants, or hail from Dutch emigrants in a near or distant past.Their knowledge of Dutch society and language, and 3. A good overview of theories is provided in: Richard Alba and Victor Nee, Remaking the American mainstream.Assimilation and contemporary immigration (Cambridge Mass.2003).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.007 |
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".