Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family rituals often bring unacknowledged ideologies to the surface; thus, weddings – the events and the planning of them – are opportune activities in which to examine support for same-sex marriage. This chapter focuses on perceptions of support for same-sex couples as they transitioned into marriage. Informed by the social ecological model and the life course perspective, I describe two qualitative studies that examined support for same-sex marriage, focusing specifically on engagement announcements, wedding planning, and wedding events. The first study examined Canadians’ experiences of support from (a) family and friends, (b) communities, and (c) wedding industry businesses and organizations. The second study looked at same-sex marriage support from the perspectives of family members of recently married same-sex couples, involving participants from Canada and the US. Those who supported individuals in same-sex marriages were typically very happy for them, and any concerns were specific to the couple. Additionally, most felt they had always been supportive of same-sex marriage and identified key life experiences influencing their views, such as having open-minded parents, higher levels of education, and personal and/or professional interactions with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals in which they got to know the individuals on more than just a surface level.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".