Predicting Partnership Rights: Applying the European Experience to the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1989, same-sex couples in Europe and North America have begun to receive many or all of the rights and responsibilities of legal marriage. To date, nine European countries give same-sex couples either the right to marry (the Netherlands and Belgium) or to form a legal partner relationship (registered partnerships in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland; pactes civil de solidarite in France; and life partnerships in Germany). Several Canadian provinces and territories now extend such rights, with federal legislation under active consideration. In the United States, Massachusetts grants same-sex couples the right to marry. California, Vermont and Connecticut provide almost all of the state-granted rights and responsibilities of marriage. New Jersey, Maine, and Hawaii provide same-sex couples with a smaller package of such rights. In several other countries and states, marriage and partnership rights legislation is scheduled to go into effect (the United Kingdom and New Zealand), or appear likely to be enacted (Spain, Luxembourg, and Switzerland). This remarkable movement toward legal equality for gay and lesbian couples raises many intriguing questions. In particular, it forces us to wonder why some countries have moved so clearly toward equality while others have not. This question has both academic and political significance.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".