Unraveling Heteronormativity inside Colombian Family Law: Juridical Perspectives on the Economic Differences between Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Couple Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research paper analyzes the sufficiency of the economic implications of couples’ relationships regulation for same-sex couples after both marriage and unmarried cohabitation laws were judicially extended on these family forms in Colombia. I start describing the existing regimes for these marital relationships in Colombian law and how heterosexuality and economic dependence are embedded inside the regulations’ origins and current developments. Then, I identify the categories that show slight differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples like the likelihood of having children and its impact on caregiving distribution, the domestic tasks allocation and the existing gender differences in access to the labor market and the income disparity. Based on these differing features and a theoretical framework that warns about sameness discourses that obscure the differences between gay, lesbian, and straight families, I critically analyze some empirical studies conducted in Colombia that reveal existing differences between heterosexual and homosexual households. This analysis invites future research to gather the absent data in Colombia concerning same-sex families to bring proposals of legal interpretation and law reform that are better equipped for all family forms.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".