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
To read the current literature on nineteenth-century friendships is to walk away with the impression that they were far more demonstrative, emotionally as well as physically, than is the case today. This impression can be traced back to a seminal article by Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, and it repeats, with variants and caveats, in the literature on the same-sex friendships of nineteenth-century men. A closer look at the sources reveals that almost all of the people in question were Unitarian or Unitarian-leaning, and as such well outside the American mainstream. In this article I explore the phenomenon of evangelical male friendships, and come to three basic conclusions: (1) the conscientious evangelical placed his relationship with God above those with friends and family; (2) that relationship constrained his behavior, encouraging a reserve in all of his interactions; and (3) there is no reason to assume that his relationships with other men were emotionally more intense-and more fulfilling-than his relationship with his wife. The article questions asks whether romantic friendships were in fact a fleeting and isolated phenomenon in nineteenth-century America, and suggests that the reticence evangelicals observed in their friendships lent itself to a growing mistrust of nonfamilial relationships.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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