Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Following the landmark 2003 Ontario Court of Appeal decision legalizing same‐sex marriage, some same‐sex couples sought to formalize their unions through legal marriage. The purpose of this paper is to explore the personal and political reflections of recently married same‐sex couples on the meaning of their marriages for themselves, their partners, their community as well as the implications for progressive social change in the broader social world. Design/methodology/approach An ethnographic approach was employed to semi‐structured in‐depth qualitative interviews with six lesbian and gay couples. Findings An emerging thesis is that, while seeking access to a most conventional and conformist institution, same‐sex couples inadvertently become “cutting edge” couples as they make public their declarations of love and commitment and model new and challenging notions of marriage. Research limitations/implications The paper provides a snapshot of a small number of interviews that took place approximately 11 months after the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. Practical implications Law should take into account the importance of social and legal recognition of marriage for all. The heteronormativity of marriage is thus challenged from within, to make these types of marriages truly cutting edge. Originality/value The paper provides evidence of the personal and political reflections of people who had the choice to get married and did, at a time when this was seen as really cutting edge. Few personal accounts exist which provide a picture of the continued importance of marriage to human beings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 it