Drawing Contract and Polyamory Together Or: How I Found the Limits of Liberal Legality in <i>Kimchi Cuddles</i> Comics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polyamory means consensual, aspirationally gender-egalitarian, non-monogamous relationships. People who engage in such relationships often seek relationship advice. This article is a critical review of a self-help webcomic and other texts in the light of contract theory. Polyamorous people often use contractual concepts to understand their relationships and how to carry them out. Applying critical contract theory, we can trace how problems typical of contractual framing in other fields play out in the poly context. At the same time, these problems are recognized and responded to by poly people, and they dynamically reinterpret core contract concepts. This article thus makes two contributions. First, it provides a study in the way legal concepts percolate out into, and are transformed by, everyday life. Second, in consolidating some ways poly people have solved old contract problems, it offers conceptual tools for the continuing project of imagining more just ways of relating.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".