MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1825159960 · doi:10.1300/j398v06n04_02

Gay Men in Long-Term Relationships

2007· article· en· W1825159960 on OpenAlex
Michael E. Bricker, Sharon G. Horne

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Couple & Relationship Therapy · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDemographySexual behaviorDevelopmental psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The current study explored whether differences in the practice of monogamy or non-monogamy related to the relational health of men in long-term same-sex relationships. A total of 179 monogamous and non-monogamous gay partnered men from the U.S. and Canada were surveyed via the internet in order to examine demographic, sexual, and relational variables. The majority of the sample reported maintaining a monogamous relationship (73%). The results suggested that non-monogamous men were more out, reported a greater number of sexual partners, higher frequencies of past sexual contact with men, and lower levels of dyadic attachment than their monogamous counterparts. Conversely, the monogamous and non-monogamous coupled men appeared similar in age and total number of past relationships, and did not appear to differ in their frequency of sex with their primary partners, nor in their stated relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, or attachment styles.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.272 · 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