MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172946591 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.47.1.17

Marriage, Cohabitation and LAT Relationships

2016· article· en· W2172946591 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jan Trost

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEuropean Socioeconomic and Political Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohabitationChristianityGender studiesHistorySociologyGenealogyPolitical scienceEthnologyLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As long as we know, marriages have always existed in Europe. When Christianity came the rituals also came or changed. In, for example, Iceland, these new rituals were only to some extent accepted for hundreds of years. In most other countries marriage the Christian way became also a concern for the states. And the few existing non-marital cohabitation couples were “deviants” in the meaning that they did not follow the rules of the social institution of marriage. Many of these were based upon poverty. During the 1960’s many of the traditional way couples lived were questioned, especially by activists, and changes came in some countries and in the beginning of the 1970s in other countries. The three Scandinavian countries were first with the changes. Cohabitation rapidly came as a social institution along marriage. To start with people in these new cohabitations were actively against the social institution of marriage and were in that sense “deviant”. Soon many became followers and they were certainly not in opposition to the societal values. These changes will be discussed with a theoretical background on what marriage has meant and means today together with a view on a follower of the changes and cohabitation, namely LAT 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.036 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicEuropean Socioeconomic and Political StudiesFrench-language works237,207