MARRIAGE: CIVIL, RELIGIOUS, CONTRACTUAL, AND MORE*
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
Although it is increasingly common to speak of “civil marriage,” that label falls far short of capturing the complexities of marriage. This Essay asks what might it mean for U.S. law to take seriously the civil and religious, contractual and covenantal, individual and communal claims about marriage. Muslims, Jewish, and Christian claimants alike struggle to navigate their religious beliefs about marriage and divorce and the expectations (and requirements) of the state regarding family law. The Essay suggests a way forward through a more explicitly pluralist approach that takes the interplay between law and religion seriously. Key Points for Family Court Community: Many legal discussions wrongly break marriage into simple categories of “civil marriage” and “religious marriage” and mistakenly assume that these elements of marriage can be separated. For many people, the religious aspects of marriage and divorce are more important than the civil aspects. Recent controversies over shari’a tribunals for family law in the United Kingdom and Canada will not remain isolated, and more controversies about marriage and divorce will soon arise in the United States for religious individuals. We should be “conscious pluralists” regarding family law and consider both religious and civil aspects of marriage and divorce in law‐creating and decision‐making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it