Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article traces the emergence of family law as an autonomous legal domain within English scholarly legal thought. It provides a genealogy of conceptual and taxonomical change spanning a nearly two-hundred-year period via close readings of a range of legal texts beginning with Blackstone’s Commentaries. The article shows how the invention of English family law hinged on two interrelated shifts in legal thought. One movement involved the staged extrusion of productive work relations (in the narrow sense of work for pay) from the legal household and the re-characterization of those relations as market-based activities exterior to the family and situated within an increasingly freestanding law of master and servant. Running in parallel with that work-related movement was a new emphasis on the public importance of marriage and a corresponding elevation of the husband–wife relation to the forefront of domestic relations. This latter move involved an effort by scholars to distinguish the emerging law of contract (modelled on commercial relations and ideological notions of individual will) from household-based relations that were seen as not ‘properly’ contractual because of the existence of superadded conditions that did not derive from individual will. In particular, scholars began to reframe marriage in terms of status owing to these non-modifiable terms, though contract remained the legal device by which the status of marriage was created. In the early twentieth century, these processes resulted in the complete separation of work and family into the distinct legal domains of family law and employment law.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".