MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Common Law Marriage

2008· book· en· W2485948902 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohabitationCommon lawLawComparative lawPolitical sciencePublic lawMarriage lawCivil law (Civil law)DoctrineFamily lawLegal historyLegislatureMunicipal lawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This book is a comprehensive analysis of common law marriage. Part I provides a cultural and historical history of the subject, from Ancient Roman Law to Medieval Canon Law, and analyzes the reception of the doctrine in the United States. The current law concerning common law marriage is extremely complex and uncertain. By analyzing more than 2,000 American cases, Part II of the book is intended to be a legal guide for courts, public authorities and law firms dealing with common law marriage cases. It discusses the legal requirements for the establishment of a common law marriage as to capacity, contract, implied agreement, cohabitation and holding out, burdens of proof, and presumptions. Choice of law rules in all American jurisdictions are analyzed. One of the greatest challenges that family law today faces in the Western World is the decreasing rate of marriage and the increasing number of unmarried cohabiting couples. Part III conducts from historical, comparative, and sociological perspectives a legal policy discussion concerning the future of common law marriage and the modern cohabitation law. It contains a comparison of both the judicial and legislative developments in the United States, Northern and Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. With no predetermined agenda or bias, arguments are presented and discussed to give legislators and policymakers a basis for their considerations. Different legal constructions are discussed and a new model of marriage is presented.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207