MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4302547835 · doi:10.46692/9781847422903.010

Canadian Opposition to Child Immigration

2010· other· en· W4302547835 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)ImmigrationPolitical scienceGenealogyPolitical economySociologyHistoryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Setting Throughout the first half of the nineteenth century there had been an undercurrent of opposition in Canada to certain classes of immigrants. Soon after Confederation, however, legislation specified particular categories that could be denied entry altogether. They were: the dependent, the criminal, the diseased, and those, like confirmed paupers, who were expected to become a liability. Unaccompanied children constituted an interesting group in this respect since although the younger ones were dependent on arrival their dependency could be expected to decline. In fact they could be regarded as an investment, both nationally and by individual employers. However, from the 1880s until the turn of the century in particular, their immigration was opposed for three main reasons: economic, eugenic and political. There was a conviction on the part of organised labour and some communities that as low-paid or unpaid servants the children prejudiced employment opportunities and, in general, depressed the level of wages. Other fears could easily be aroused, particularly that because of their deprived backgrounds in British slums the children carried with them the threat of contamination, a contamination that was thought to be of a congenital nature and therefore not to be eradicated by benign Canadian influences. There was believed to be the risk of diseases like syphilis or tuberculosis, as well as the risk of genetic deterioration as a result of inter-marriage or promiscuous relationships. There was also the fear that Canadian youth might be exposed to the immoral or criminal influences that the British immigrant children were supposed to exercise. Opposition also derived from the assumption that, sooner or later, at least some of these children would become social liabilities rather than economic assets. The girls might produce illegitimate children, while the boys could swell the prison population. Coming as they did from ‘poor stock’, both the boys and the girls might become sick or ‘mentally disordered’ or cease to be able to earn their living for other reasons. Since they had no family on which to call in times of trouble, and since those who had arranged their immigration would not usually assume continuous responsibility for them, they were particularly liable to become a charge on charitable or public funds. Resort could be made to deportation, but usually only within two years of the children's arrival.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0380.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designQualitative
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 topicMigration, Refugees, and Integration→French-language works237,207→