Bibliographic record
Abstract
Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution. By Evan Gerstmann. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 236p. $60.00 cloth, $22.00 paper. One hundred and twenty years ago, the Congress of the United States was embroiled in a debate over how best to regulate a type of marriage that appalled most Americans. Republicans were making political capital out of their vigorous and vitriolic attacks against the idea of such marriages, while Democrats were looking for a way to finesse the issue to maintain the political support of the unpopular minority believing in such marriages without offending the majority. Laws were introduced and passed prohibiting these marriages. Fearing that a law would be insufficient, however, a constitutional amendment was proposed to ban such marriages. The Supreme Court upheld the right of states to criminalize such marriages, though it was never asked to rule on the right of a state to recognize such marriages. Persons wishing to enter such marriages were advised to go to a neighboring country that would recognize the legitimacy of their unions. In the 1880s, the issue was polygamy, the unpopular minority Mormons, and the neighboring country Mexico (see Edward L. Lyman, Political Deliverance, 1986). Today same-sex marriages between gays or lesbians, some marrying in Canada, are causing as much turmoil in Congress as the issue of polygamy did then.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".