The language and culture of Finnish immigrants and their descendants in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the statistics approximately 1,1 % of the American nation has its roots in Finland. This is mainly the consequence of mass emigration, which concerned the whole Europe during the 19th century, including Finland. Due to the conditions in their homeland, which had been absolutely unfavourable for living, thousands of Finnish citizens left for North America. In the beginning their destination was the USA, but later Canada became more desirable. There were large Finnish communities (over 30 000 people) in the states of Michigan and Minnesota in 1930 and even in 2000 thousands of Americans acknowledge Finnish ancestry. Thanks to their certain aloofness and "introvert nature" the original communities, which do not exist any more, had created a very interesting social and cultural phenomenon, of which the language was a significant part. This dialect of the Finnish language, strongly influenced by English, provides a unique chance to research the impacts of the contact of isolating English and strongly agglutinative Finnish. There is no specialized publication or even a study on this topic in the Czech language. This work aims to fill the gap at least with the basic information about the historical, cultural and mainly language development of the Finnish immigrants and their descendants in...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".