MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392529058 · doi:10.1017/9781805430537.002

Courtship, Marriage, and Affection

2023· other· en· W4392529058 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffectionCourtshipPsychologySocial psychologyBiologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporaries Generally Saw The Courtship, marriage, and family life of army couples in largely negative terms. As noted in the Introduction, courtship was thought to be a rushed and ramshackle affair in which soldiers impulsively united themselves with very poor and disreputable women whom they encountered at the various stations where they served. Soldiers’ marriages were seen as unions in which excessive alcohol, quarrels and brawling regularly featured, familial love and good housekeeping skills were largely absent, and parental affection and ties to the partners’ natal families were minimal and fleeting. These were damning judgements, and the discussions which follow will explore their veracity as far as can be determined from the surviving sources. It will be argued that in forging affective bonds, soldiers and their wives and families demonstrated attitudes and behaviour typical of the working class from which most of them came. From the outset in their dealings with soldiers and the army – that is, during courtship – the majority of the women who became soldiers’ wives demonstrated practicality and a due regard for reputation and respectability. Indeed, many of the conventional assumptions and beliefs of affluent commentators seem to have had little basis in fact, but were, and sometimes have been since, accepted at face value. Courtship between soldiers and the women who chose to encourage them, had various motivations in the nineteenth century, and took a variety of forms. Young single women, soldiers’ widows, and their orphaned daughters all experienced sharply different courtship patterns. An engagement to marry in the military, while often an abbreviated experience, nevertheless rehearsed a number of the priorities and practices of working-class courtships generally. This was not widely recognised at the time; indeed, middle- and upper-class commentators articulated a rather different narrative with respect to young single women who married soldiers, and often suspected their motives when soldiers’ widows and orphaned daughters married. Among the affluent classes, there was a common perception in the nineteenth century that young women – especially servants – were very susceptible to the lure of a red uniform, to ‘scarlet fever’ as Henry Mayhew put it in the early 1860s. An army chaplain stated the situation succinctly: ‘Mary's military admirer is so spruce, so smart, so neat, so different from all her other admirers, that the red-coat is always sure to carry the day.’

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→