Notice bibliographique
Résumé
“Early national” here means 1790 to 1830, and “New England” is represented by Hartford County, Connecticut; Windsor County, Vermont; and occasionally all of Vermont. Mary Beth Sievens uses desertion notices in newspapers and divorce cases to explore the condition of married women in a period she characterizes as one of unusual economic and social change. Most of the notices were inserted by husbands as public warnings that they would no longer be responsible for their wives' debts. Many describe wives' ill behavior as reason for withdrawing their credit. A few notices came from women, mostly in defense of their character and actions. Sievens asks why so few wives responded to their husbands' notices. Her answer is that their audiences differed. Wives needed only to reassure their friends, kin, and neighbors, whereas husbands needed to alert existing and potential creditors beyond the immediate locale. Sievens uses a variety of public records— census, tax, probate, divorce, and birth records—to find out what happened to partners in a subsample of couples posting elopement notices from 1790 to 1830. Of those for whom she was able to obtain the necessary information, roughly equal proportions reconciled and divorced, although more than a quarter remained legally separated. Older couples were more likely to reconcile than were younger couples. Sievens believes that older wives were economically and socially more dependent on their husbands and therefore less free to decline to return. Of those divorcing, very few women remarried, whereas Vermont men were much more likely to do so. More than two-thirds of her divorcées petitioned on the grounds of desertion, but close to half in Vermont also complained of “intolerable severity,” grounds that were less likely to win in the more conservative state of Connecticut (p. 104). Interestingly, minor children more often lived with their mothers than with their fathers, few of whom actively sought custody.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».