Dutch and American Immigrant Agricultural Settlement in Central British Columbia: 1938–1990
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is based on two sets of interviews, with Dutch and American agricultural settlers, conducted with an interval of approximately 25 years. The similar-ities and differences in settlers ’ backgrounds, migration, settlement, and agricultural development are examined. The “push ” and “pull ” of migration are discussed. The homogeneous Dutch group was drawn to the Bulkley Valley by a community, established in the late 1930s, of families, friends, and orthodox Calvinist church group members. The diverse American settlers migrated, often drawn by “cheap land, ” as individual families. The Dutch focused on intensive agriculture, especially dairying. Americans focused on “ranching. ” Farming experience, personal objectives, availability of develop-ment capital, and stability of markets were major influ-ences on the extent of both part-time and full-time agri-cultural development. Reflecting their economic viability and a strong family farm tradition, Dutch dairy farms often transferred to a second generation. Success in agriculture, immigrant community cohe-siveness, proximity, and the strength of initial commit-ment to immigration contributed to differences in set-tler stability in Central BC/Canada.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".