Marriage à la Chatelaine : Negotiating Marriage and Divorce in the 1960s and 1970s through the Pages of Canada's Leading English Women's Magazine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: As divorce became easier to achieve in the 1960s and 1970s, the number of divorces skyrocketed and many Canadians, regardless of whether or not they stayed together, were re-evaluating what they wanted out of their marriages. These changes were propelled, in part, by second-wave feminism and women's increased workforce participation. In the magazine's treatment of marriage and divorce in these decades, Chatelaine' s writers, many of whom themselves had experiences of marital breakdown, provided considerable advice to Canadians on how to negotiate this time of tremendous change in marital expectations. Abstract: Alors que le divorce devenait plus accessible dans les années 1960 et 1970, son nombre a considérablement augmenté et de nombreux Canadiens et Canadiennes, qu'ils soient restés ensemble ou non, ont réévalué ce qu'ils attendaient de leur mariage. Ces changements ont été motivés, en partie, par la deuxième vague du féminisme et la participation accrue des femmes au marché du travail. En traitant du mariage et du divorce dans le magazine au cours de ces décennies, les rédactrices et rédacteurs de Chatelaine , dont beaucoup avaient eux-mêmes vécu une rupture conjugale, ont fourni de nombreux conseils aux Canadiennes et Canadiens sur la manière de négocier cette période de changements considérables dans les attentes conjugales.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".