Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume presents the study of immigrant women’s aging destinies in the Americas since the beginning of the 19th century. The introduction first highlights the originality of the volume, beginning with a presentation on the debate, approaches, and methodologies that researchers have adopted on the subject. While earlier researchers argued that aging women’s survival depended solely on their husbands or one of their children (daughters generally), new research proposes more subtle conclusions on the diversity of women’s aging experiences depending on their geographical, social, racial, cultural, economic, and political conditions. Yet, rarely do these studies focus on aging immigrant women. The contributors to this volume use multidisciplinary approaches and methods (macro-structural, micro-longitudinal, private documents, and oral reports), focusing on migrants’ countries of origins, their different migration types (inter-continental and intra-continental), their different destinations in the Americas (Canada, the United States, Mexico, Uruguay, and Argentina), and the different time periods (historical and recent past) in order to determine migrant women’s levels of dependence and autonomy as they age. The authors (historians, historical demographers, sociologists, and ethnographers) demonstrate that migrant women were and are not always followers and dependents, but active participants in their own destinies, sometimes making it through old age better than historiography has argued.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.250 | 0.123 |
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".