Canadian Journal of Sociology Online September-October 2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kathleen Hull’s study of the commitment and spousal practices of same-sex couples in the United States is a welcome addition to the general field of socio-legal studies and, specifically, to the development of a comparative political sociology of lesbian and gay life. The book will attract attention in the current political climate because of the implications of Hull’s findings for the ongoing debate on the prioritization of same-sex marriage as a goal for the lesbian and gay movement in the U.S. In doing so, Hull indirectly contributes to the debate on same-sex marriage in Canada and beyond. Also, the book will be of interest to sociologists of culture, gender and sexuality as it offers pioneering analysis of emerging rituals and spousal practices among same-sex couples. The empirical core of Hull’s project is an exploration of the relationship between culture, politics and law through interviews with 71 individuals representing 38 same-sex couples on their attitudes towards public commitment ceremonies. She sought information on why couples chose to undertake such a ceremony (or not), how they carried out their ceremony and how they understood the meaning of their ceremony (or lack of one). From a methodological standpoint, there are limitations in Hull’s sample, as she fully explains, and it is to be hoped that this research could be replicated and extended, especially beyond its regional confines in the Chicago area. Nonetheless, Hull’s interviews
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.263 | 0.051 |
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".