Bibliographic record
Abstract
The many figures that populated the family in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries gradually disappeared until the couple of husband and wife took the centre of the stage, and the marriage contract became constitutive of domestic relations. - Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract, p.116. This paper is an historical study of the dissolution of the productive household in (primarily) nineteenth-century English law and legal thought. Building on Pateman’s insights into the construction of the family and marriage in political thought, the paper shows how law and legal thought contributed to the disaggregation of work and family life, and constructed (in place of the household) a legal conception of the private family that revolved around the married couple. The first part of the paper traces the movement in scholarly legal thought from Blackstone’s “private oeconomical relations”, to the late nineteenth century category of “Domestic Relations”, and the eventual emergence of “Family Law” in the twentieth century. It identifies two key processes in this intellectual shift: the excision of master-servant law from the legal household and its (imperfect) identification with contract; and a concomitant move away from a contractual treatment of marriage towards a modern, specifically legal, status-based conception of the relation. The second part of the paper considers how institutional lawmaking and social norms combined to disaggregate the household in distinctly gendered ways. Addressing enclosure laws, family wage ideology, married women’s property laws, and judicial reinforcement of women’s presumed domesticity in breach of promise to marry cases, it shows how law and ideology reinforced the sexual contract by splitting the household along corresponding female/male and family/work lines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".