MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148803751 · doi:10.1177/0095327x09358654

Different and Unequal? Breadwinning, Dependency Deferments, and the Gendered Origins of the U.S. Selective Service System

2010· article· en· W2148803751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dorit Geva

Bibliographic record

VenueArmed Forces & Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean University InstituteNational Archives and Records AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDiscretionService (business)White (mutation)Political scienceDemographic economicsCriminologyBusinessPublic administrationEconomic growthSociologyLawEconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With establishment of the U.S. Selective Service System in 1917, selective draft rules placed consideration of registrants’ economic obligations to their dependents front and center. By observing the Canadian and British recruitment experiences, American policy makers opted against universal conscription since they believed it would be costly because of the need to offer family allowances and opted against a voluntary system since they believed that too many bachelors would fail to volunteer. Dependency deferments were designed to minimize the social and economic costs of war. Local board members determined whether a man was a genuine breadwinner or not, and individual discretion on this matter contributed to the higher rates of African American draftees during WWI compared to white draftees, since African American men were less likely to be recognized as genuine breadwinners. Selective Service rules thus resulted in reproducing female citizens as economic dependents and yielded durable inequalities among registrants.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.017
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArmed Forces & SocietySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207