Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As a modern female style undermined a Victorian motherhood‐centered ideal, whites and African Americans debated conceptions of women's sexuality and marriage. In the 1910s social hygiene reformers anxious about venereal disease called for scientific sex education but still romanticized motherhood, while sex radicals demanded birth control, free love, or the right to interracial relationships or homosexuality. The book emphasizes more conventional reformers, who by the 1920s hoped to contain the potential for modern women's independence from men and marriage in “companionate marriage.” This incorporated birth control, easier divorce, and intensified sexual intimacy. The most popular version involved free‐spirited flappers who did not seriously challenge male authority or women's ultimate focus on motherhood. Some more equitable minority versions were African American partnership marriage, which included wives' employment, and feminist marriage, in which white and black women imagined a more thoroughgoing equality of work and sex. Sexual advice literature flooded onto the market in the 1930s, offering women conflicting messages about achieving sexual pleasure but also pleasing husbands. Despite the unsettling of an older femininity, deep and persistent structural inequalities between men and women limited efforts to create gender parity in sex and marriage. Yet these cultural battles subverted patriarchal culture and raised women's expectations of marriage in ways that grounded second‐wave feminist claims.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.006 |
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".