Family Feuds: The Relationships between Legal Changes and Media Framing Concerning the Family
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do legal changes affect discourse concerning family forms? The concept of the family is conventionally assumed to be stable and unchanging; yet, the idea of family is continuously defined and redefined by the law. I analyze the nature of media framing before and after federal legislative changes, specifically the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) and Windsor v. United States (2013). I investigate 156 articles about same-sex marriage legislation published in The New York Times. Results show that legislative events and court decisions influence the framing of family and family forms. DOMA influenced the discourse surrounding family composition by strictly defining the family unit, centering it on a heteronormative framework of one man and one woman. Windsor affected the discourse concerning the role of children by shifting the focus away from LGBT parents as unfit or dangerous to children and toward a structural and societal assessment of discrimination. Both DOMA and Windsor affected public discourse about morality. These findings support the idea that legal changes affect conceptions of the family and reveal how these conceptions can change in the broader public imagination.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it