MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068102555 · doi:10.1177/0363199013484714

Ireland and the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857

2013· article· en· W2068102555 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diane Urquhart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family History · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Academy
KeywordsIrishParliamentLawPolitical scienceSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the reasons for and impact of Ireland’s exclusion from the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857. From the eighteenth century, Irish citizens brought private divorce bills to the Irish parliament and to Westminster. The Act of Union in 1800 restricted Irish bills for divorce to Westminster but with the creation of a London divorce court as a result of the 1857 act, the parliamentary basis of divorce was restricted to Ireland and other areas of the empire, such as Canada and India. However, Canada and India’s divorce laws were reformed in 1867 and 1869, respectively, and thereafter Ireland’s Westminster basis of divorce was unique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations55
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family HistorySame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207