Differences in a Minor Archive: Feminist Activists and Scholars on Cohabitation
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
Abstract In an act of minor comparativism, this Article studies feminist writings on unmarried cohabitation from Canada’s jurisdictions of the common law and civil law. It examines activist texts and legal scholarship for and against regulating cohabitants. Reading the English-language literature from the common law provinces and the French-language literature from Quebec, it reports differences in substance, in emphasis, and in what is common sense. Differing approaches to ideas of freedom, autonomy, and choice run throughout. The Quebec literature shows disagreement between activists and scholars. Over time, that literature has moved towards the view in the common law literature. Lessons for comparatists relate to varieties of difference, the definition of legal sources, the asymmetrical role that legal traditions play in majority and minority contexts, and the limits of law in explaining differences. Given the unreliability of initial observations of difference and sameness, comparatists should read a broad range of sources with care and humility.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it