Rights of Love: the State and Intimate Relationships in
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article puzzles through the contrasts and paradoxes arising from state practices of relationship recognition in Canada and the United States. In the Canadian case, the focus is on the assignment of legal status to common-law relationships, regardless of whether the parties to the relationship desire that status. In the United States, in contrast, legislative attention has been directed at the reinforcement of heterosexual marriage. These differing postures provoke questions regarding the roles of intimate relationships in governing projects. In particular, what do these postures mean for the autonomy of individuals to construct their personal lives and how do they complicate the designation “neoliberal ” to Canadian and US regimes of governance. The capacity for an adult to choose if, with whom, and how one wants to share one’s personal life is fundamental to autonomy, full personhood, and liberal democratic citizenship. Such a decision would appear to be profoundly and necessarily private, yet it is an act of much interest to the state. In the case of marriage, of course,
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".