The Second Time ’Round: Gender Construction in Remarried Couples’ Wedding Planning
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
Humble, Zvonkovic, and Walker (2008 Humble, A. M., Zvonkovic, A. M. and Walker, A. J. 2008. “The royal we”: Gender ideology, display, and assessment in wedding work. Journal of Family Issues, 29(1): 3–25. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) studied division of labor in first-time marriages, finding a range of gender construction. This study applied their conceptualization to remarried couples, for whom little is known about division of labor or wedding experiences. Fourteen couples in which at least 1 spouse had recently remarried were interviewed about their wedding planning. Data analysis consisted of direct content analysis, rank order comparison, and matrix analysis. Contrasting Humble et al.'s findings, traditional and egalitarian couples were more common than transitional couples. Although remarriages tended to involve smaller and less complicated weddings, the majority of the couples replicated gendered patterns from their first weddings in subsequent weddings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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