Until Death Do Us Part? The Impact of Differential Access to Marriage on a Sample of Urban Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, lesbian- and gay-themed research has identified exclusion from marriage as a dimension of the homosexual experience, yet little research has treated marriage as an explicitly problematic feature of homosexual biography. This article presents a comparison of the life histories of a sample of urban heterosexual and homosexual men to examine the impact of differential access to the institution of marriage on the sexual career. Like the opposite poles of a compass, inclusion in and exclusion from marriage provide contrasting navigational reference points, propelling heterosexual men into career trajectories characterized by decreasing sexual exploration and growing investment in monogamous dyadic forms and, homosexual men into career trajectories characterized by increasing sexual exploration, dyadic innovation, and reevaluation of the value of monogamy. Still, despite the contrasting structural positions that heterosexual and homosexual men occupy, the narratives of both sets of study participants reveal shared ambivalences stemming from structured life paths that permit the satisfaction of some desires while frustrating or precluding altogether the realization of others. That is, the life histories of these men reveal patterned crisis tendencies around intimacy and commitment that transcend categories of sexual orientation and are perhaps endemic to late modernity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".