Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common portrayals of Canada's only openly polygamous community cast it as a space frozen in time, both socially and intellectually. "Bountiful," British Columbia is a sixty-five-year-old community comprised of followers of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Many residents espouse plural marriage as a central tenet of their faith, believing that the practice leads not only to a good terrestrial life but, also, to facilitated entry into the "celestial kingdom." Visual and written accounts of Bountiful routinely present the women of this community as submissive, silenced, and isolated. Their traditional dress, and the number of children often captured following or clinging to them, suggest conservatism, and possibly also social regression and exploitation. This imagery bolsters current legal approaches to plural marriage in Canada. In particular, the notion that gender inequality and oppression are inherent to polygamy serves to support the criminal prohibition of plural marriage. This article presents a counter-narrative to this common portrayal of the FLDS wife. It draws upon interviews conducted with twenty FLDS women who are, or who at one time were, Bountiful residents. In discussing matters related to family, reproduction, work, education, and their perception of law's approach to polygamy, participants cast Bountiful as a heterogeneous and dynamic social and political space where at least some women are able to wield considerable authority. Their stories are inconsistent with the dominant legal and social narrative about polygamy and its harms for women, and offer an opportunity for developing a more robust and nuanced appreciation of the implications of plural marriage for Bountiful's wives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".