Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term pillars was coined as an English equivalent of the word zuilen (suppor ts or pillars), which refers to the major segments of Dutch society, each with its own institutions based on religious or non-religious principles.With the population movement from the Netherlands to Canada between 1947 and 1958, at least two zuilen were transpor ted and partly reassembled on Canadian soil.Other Dutch people came as ''unattached'' immigrants, leaving their pillars behind.However, all but one of the pillars star ted to crumble in the sixties in both Europe and Canada.The Dutch society they left behind was stratified along class lines, with its own status distinctions based on speech, family background and education.Such distinctions cut across the pillars.Stretching the metaphor further, each pillar had many tiers, with tiers at the same level displaying the same colour.Immigrants who had occupied higher positions in Dutch society often displayed their colours, especially when interacting with each other.Eventually the colours faded, or were camouflaged in the Canadian context.Distinctions based on gender, age and region of origin were likewise altered and partly replicated in North America.My portrayal of Dutch immigrants can be compared to creating a painting or producing a film; however, it is impossible to keep the brushstrokes within a single frame, or to create a single plot.Although my story deals primarily with the cohort that came after World War Two, one cannot totally ignore the ''old-timers'' who came to Canada from the Netherlands before the War or the smaller contingent of more recent Dutch immigrants.Nor can we overlook the inevitable contact between Dutch-Canadians and their Flemish cousins from Belgium, or the connections between Dutch newcomers in Canada and the descendants of Dutch immigrants living south of the border.Dutch-speaking immigrants quickly became an integral component of an officially multicultural, albeit predominantly English-speaking, society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".