Retention of ethnic culture among Thunder Bay Finns / by Michael J. Maunula. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis addresses the question: "What are \nthe factors influencing the level of ethnic culture \nretention among Thunder Bay Finns?" The investigation \nis focused on three characteristics: residency (urban \nor rural), residential propinquity to other Finns, \nand socio-economic status. \nThe survey instrument gathers additional respondent \ncharacteristics to allow evaluation of the influence \nof other factors. In measuring culture, a distinction \nis made between knowledge and practise of Finnish \ncustoms and culture and efforts to maintain a Finnish \nidentity. The latter allows a response to current \nethnic assimilation literature which suggests a resurging \ninterest in selective areas of ethnic heritage. \nPreceeding the review of the literature, a \nhistorical perspective is given to the present situation \nby summarizing the history of the Finnish people, their \nemigration to Canada, and the experiences of the immigrants \nin Canada and particularly Thunder Bay. \nAmong the young adults of Finnish descent who \nformed the sample population, those who were raised \nin an urban setting were likely to have a higher culture \nretention level than those raised in a rural setting. \nNot surprising, those raised in a neighbourhood predom-inantly Finnish also had a higher culture retention level \nthan those raised in a non-Finnish neighbourhood. \nSocio-economic status proves interesting in that those \nrespondents from families having a low socio-economic \nstatus retain more of their culture than those from \nfamilies having a high socio-economic status. However, \nwhen the respondent?s own present socio-economic status \nis considered, those with a high socio-economic status \nretain more Finnish culture than the low socio-economic \nstatus respondents. It is arguable that upward mobility \namong this group has not resulted in abandonment of \ntheir ethnic heritage. An adjustment, where both success \nin the dominant society and a continued identification \nwith one?s ethnic heritage co-exist, appears to have \noccurred. The bond of ethnic affinity displays considerable \nendurance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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; 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".