MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035235135 · doi:10.1177/036319900102600203

Marriage in 1901 Canada: An Ecological Perspective

2001· article· en· W2035235135 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stacie Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family History · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusPerspective (graphical)Variation (astronomy)Regional variationGeographySample (material)DemographyMarriage marketPopulationDemographic economicsSociologyPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the absence of comprehensive national-level databases, historical patterns of Canadian marriage behavior remain poorly understood. This study draws on the Canadian Families Project’s 5 percent sample of the 1901 Census of Canada to contextualize district-level variation in both the timing and intensity of marriage among Canadian women and men. Local constraints and freedoms on marriage were conceptualized by a selection of marriage-market, economic, demographic, and general social characteristics. The results of ecological regression modeling indicate that, collectively, these were important factors underlying national variation in Canadian nuptiality, particularly with reference to striking interprovincial differences in marriage behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family HistorySame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207