MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361859564 · doi:10.1162/jinh_r_01921

<i>Immigration: An American History</i> by Carl J. Bon Tempo and Hasia R. Diner

2023· article· en· W4361859564 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas A. Guglielmo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Interdisciplinary History · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRace, History, and American Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationHistoriographyRacismImmigration lawState (computer science)HistoryBureaucracyGender studiesImmigration policyPolitical scienceSociologyGenealogyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this book, Bon Tempo and Diner provide a readable and expansive survey of U.S. immigration history. Moving briskly from the seventeenth century to the present day, they chart the twists and turns in U.S. immigration patterns, policies, and bureaucracies, as well as in the lives of U.S. immigrants. Along the way, they incorporate many recent, important trends in immigration historiography—including an emphasis on race and racism, on immigrants from all over the world (both women and men), and on its transnational dimensions (notwithstanding the subtitle “American History”). They also dot their narrative with compelling personal stories of varied, lesser-known immigrants—Irish union leader Leonora Barry; Sudanese refugee Achut Deng; Louise Norton, Malcolm X’s mother, who migrated to the United States from the West Indies by way of Canada; and struggling Chinese artist Qiming Lui.In a book of such breadth, central arguments can be difficult to decipher, but Bon Tempo and Diner stress two of them. The first is the “primary significance [of] … economic matters”—especially “work and the nation’s labor needs”—“in explaining the United States’ immigration history” (4). The second is the centrality of the state in determining which immigrants could come to the United States, which of them could stay, which of them could become full-fledged members of the nation, and which of them could access a full range of rights, protections, and resources in their new home. In concluding, the authors highlight three surprisingly straightforward historical themes that “best arm our readers as the story of immigration and the United States continues to unfold” (362). In addition to the argument above about the state’s importance, they insist that “immigrants came to North America in search of a better life” and that they “are like us” (362, 363).In making these and other claims, Bon Tempo and Diner draw from a mix of sources, including government and think-tank reports, newspaper and magazine articles, memoirs, oral histories, and even an occasional YouTube video, campaign advertisement, or protest poster. But their main source is the scholarship of historians and, to a lesser extent, political scientists, sociologists, economists, legal scholars, anthropologists, and others. Hence, the book has a faint interdisciplinary flavor. Its main audience, however, appears to be non-specialists in immigration history, as fine an audience as any but one that brings some disadvantages, especially for readers of this journal. In their understandable effort to keep the story moving, Bon Tempo and Diner tend to shy away from any deep engagement with the big theoretical debates that roil much of the immigration scholarship. For example, they avoid any analysis of the extent to which political institutions, political traditions, social forces, economic interests, cultural dynamics, or some combination thereof is responsible for the many shifts in U.S. immigration policy over time. Nor do they interrogate the role that capitalism, in its various configurations, played. Is it true, as one scholar recently suggested, that the “interests and strategies of capital” have largely determined U.S. immigration policy over the years?1 For a book that places “economic matters” at the center of the story, it is surprising that the authors seldom address these issues systematically.Immigration is nonetheless a valuable, far-reaching history. Those wishing for more interdisciplinarity and theory, however, might consult older overviews by Ngai, Tichenor, and Zolberg.2

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Interdisciplinary HistorySame topicRace, History, and American SocietyFrench-language works237,207