Contesting Conservatisms, Family Feuds and the Privatization of Dependency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper begins with an exploration of the theoretical differences between different visions of the family and the contradictory implications for the regulation of the family. It illustrates the extent to which these divergent approaches to family and privatization correspond to fiscal and social conservative political philosophies, and their fundamental differences in assumptions about family, gender and dependency. The paper then turns to consider three issues in the federal legal regulation of the family as concrete instantiations of the contradictions: child support, welfare reform, and marriage. \n \nAlthough no one model of the family has emerged as dominant, the analysis of each of the three areas suggests that the social conservative model appears to be in ascendance. The paper argues that it is the discursive power of this social conservative vision that has to a large extent precluded broader definitions of family and a more robust privatization of support obligations in accordance with the goals of fiscal conservatism or the promotion of private choice in accordance with the goals of libertarianism.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".