Property and Marriage : The Law and the Practice in Early Nineteenth-Century Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between the 1820s and 1840s, the use of marriage contracts in Montreal changed. Firstly, over this period, marriage contracts were increasingly the tool of a propertied minority of the population. Secondly, a rapidly growing proportion of those signing a contract chose to keep the property of each spouse separate rather than creating a community of property. This choice was not limited to anglophones and was most pronounced when the husband was a merchant or bourgeois. Thirdly, more and more of the wives of wealthier Montrealers appear to have had the power to administer their own personal goods. How this worked out in practice, however, has to be determined. Entre les annees 1820 et 1840, trois transformations ont marque l’utilisation des contrats de mariage a Montreal. D’abord, la signature d’un contrat devint progressivement le lot d’une minorite de possedants. Ensuite, une proportion toujours plus large choisit la separation plutot que la communaute de biens, surtout chez les couples dont le mari etait un marchand ou un bourgeois, et cela, non seulement parmi les anglophones. Enfin, il semble que dans les familles tres aisees, un nombre grandissant de femmes aient assume la gestion de leurs biens quoiqu’on ne sache pas grand-chose sur l’exercice de ce droit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".