Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domestic obligations must rank among the most important of personal obligations, whether importance is judged by social significance, by the number of persons affected, or (in recent decades) by volume of litigation. They are private legal obligations in the strictest sense of each of these words, yet they have usually been marginalized in or omitted entirely from accounts of the law of obligations. Anglo-American law, unlike some other systems, has not formally separated family relationships from the rest of private law. In the past some features have tended towards a separation, such as the exclusive matrimonial jurisdiction of the English ecclesiastical courts (abolished in 1857), the rule of interspousal immunity in tort law (abolished in the twentieth century), and a presumption against binding contractual relations in family agreements (never more than a presumption). In the second half of the twentieth century any possibility of a formal separation receded as property disputes between spouses were adjudicated by applying general principles of property law, contracts, torts, trusts, and unjust enrichment; sharp distinctions based on the status of marriage became untenable as the same principles were then extended to non-matrimonial relationships. The omission of domestic obligations from accounts of private law cannot therefore be justified on formal grounds. They can neither be subordinated to any of the concepts just mentioned nor wholly separated from them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.023 |
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".