Aging French-Canadian Immigrant Women in the U.S. in 1910
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1910, 385,000 French-Canadian immigrants were enumerated in the United States. Like other immigrants, they crossed the American border at a time when the country was industrializing at a very rapid pace. Women made up a significant proportion of this group, especially in industrial cities in New England, where four out of five French-Canadian immigrants resided. This chapter uses micro-level census data to compare aging French-Canadian immigrant women in the United States in 1910 with women from the same generation who stayed in Canada, in 1911. Results show that elderly French-Canadian women’s experiences in the United States differed from that of non-immigrant women in that a majority lived in cities and worked in industries. The situation was different for the minority of French-Canadian women in the Midwest and on the Pacific Coast, who were significantly outnumbered by men. The family was central to the life of both immigrant and non-immigrant women even more so in the United States. In a context where return migration was common, there are signs to suggest that women may have been more reluctant than men to leave the American way of life to go back to Canada definitively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".