MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300692427 · doi:10.46692/9781847422903.009

Canadian Demand for Child Labour

2010· other· en· W4300692427 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabour economicsChild labourEconomicsBusinessEngineeringWork (physics)Mechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Farm Family There was considerable Canadian demand for British child immigrants throughout the 50 years after Confederation, and it remained at a high level even during periods of economic recession. In order to appreciate why these demands were so insistent it is necessary to explore the nature of the Canadian farm family economy. Most British immigrant children were placed in rural areas and overwhelmingly on farms. This is explained by the persistent shortages of farm labour that were endlessly reported by the immigration agents stationed across the country. What most farmers wanted was a ready supply of cheap casual labour that could be hired and fired according to the tempo of the year's work. Short growing seasons made it uneconomical to retain people on a permanent footing, especially on small farms. Indeed, the relatively small size of Canadian farms was a major factor that shaped this demand for casual labour. In its turn the size of farms was much influenced by the land grant systems. While the overriding aim was to encourage settlement, there were limits to what an individual settler family could be expected to do, especially those with little or no capital. The size of allocations was fixed accordingly – typically less than 200 acres. Families were granted what they could manage by dint of hard work and some occasional help. Additional land was acquired when farms prospered and other plots were bought and sold, but the initial and pervasive influence on the size of farms in the older provinces was the point of physical exhaustion of the family unit. Table 1 shows the percentage distribution of farm sizes between 1871 and 1921. Not until the 1911 Census were more than half of Canadian farms recorded as being larger than 100 acres. In the earlier years there was little difference in the size of holdings in the various provinces but, as the west was developed, pronounced differences began to emerge. In the prairies farms were significantly larger and became larger still, whereas in the more established areas they generally remained small. The enlarged scale of western farming was facilitated by mechanisation and also by the importation of more capital and by various forms of co-operative enterprise. Table 2 illustrates these differences and changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207