Bibliographic record
Abstract
King : Shall I divorce them then? O be it far, That any hand on earth should dare untie, The sacred knot knit by Gods majesty; I would not for my crown disjoin their hands That are conjoined in holy nuptial bands, How sayest thou Lacy? Wouldst thou loose thy Rose? Thomas Dekker, The Shoemakers Holiday (1600) Lawrence Stone believed that from the time of the Reformation, which led to a narrowing of the grounds for annulment, until just prior to the Restoration, when private separation agreements became possible, the bonds of marriage were harder to break than at any other time in English history. Later historians have disagreed with Stone about the precise contours of marriage law and practice during these decades. R. H. Helmholz, for example, has questioned the ease with which the pre-Reformation church granted annulments, while Martin Ingram remains sceptical of Stone's assumptions about the prevalence of desertions after the Reformation. Nevertheless, few historians dispute the legal, ecclesiastical and social strength of the institution of marriage between the mid-sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries. Elsewhere in Europe, the Protestant reforms that removed marriage from its sacramental pedestal also ushered in the possibility of divorce, but in England divorce in the modern sense – the legal dissolution of a valid marriage allowing parties to remarry – remained unobtainable for most couples until 1857.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".