Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the present Commonwealth immigrant population of Great Britain is the result of the influx of workers between 1955 and 1965. They were playing a specific role in changes in the structure of the labour force which were going on during the fifties and the early sixties in Britain. E. J. B. Rose has observed that ‘the immigrant population is under-represented in those occupations normally considered most desirable, and over-represented in those occupations normally considered most undesirable.’ (Colour and Citizenship; A Report on British Race Relations, OUP for IRR, 1969). In other words, the Commonwealth immigrant worker tended to enter those jobs, and those industries, which were failing to attract indigenous workers at that time, and which therefore, almost by definition, were ‘socially undesirable’. Whether or not this notion of social undesirability includes pay as a principal component is not clear, but it would be reasonable to assume that monetary emoluments, and other than monetary emoluments, such as the availability of housing and social services near to the place of work, are the main determinants of what makes a job socially desirable in present day British society. The black population today may or may not suffer from low pay; but many of its problems derive from its situation as the outcome of a stopgap worker immigration into ‘socially undesirable’ jobs and districts in the fifties and sixties. The data which would enable us to take this point further is very sparse indeed. The most authoritative assessment that has been made of the role of immigrant workers in the economy, that of Jones and Smith (The Economic Impact of Commonwealth Immigration, Cam-bridge University Press, 1970) resorted to a largely impres-sionistic assessment of earnings characteristics of immigrant workers. Jones and Smith therefore simply looked at earnings in those occupations in which immigrants were concentrated. They did, however, quote a sample survey published in 1962 which found that Jamaican males were earning nearly 30 per cent less than the average for all male manual workers in Britain, and females some 20 per cent less than the average for all females.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".