Constructing a sense of commitment in ‘Living Apart Together’ (LAT) relationships: Interpretive agency and individualization
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LAT (Living Apart Together) relationships involve two people in a long-term intimate relationship who choose to live in separate households. Due to their tendency to lack structural commitments and rely on emotional bonds, LAT relationships can be viewed as a manifestation of individualization. Despite the increasing social acceptability of non-traditional partnerships, in many ways LAT relationships are still seen as deviant (and lacking commitment) by outsiders. This article draws on interpretive analyses of interviews with 28 LAT couples in two Canadian cities to explore how participants exercise agency and construct a sense of commitment in their relationships under these conditions (e.g. responding to generalized and particular others). In general, the LAT couples in this study described their commitments as strong, and as rooted in sexual fidelity, mutual exchanges of support, affection, with a long-term orientation, a willingness to work through difficulties and a shared history. Some ambivalence in discussing commitment can be explained with reference to participants’ strong desire to maintain independence within the relationship. This study represents one of the first in-depth examinations of LAT relationships undertaken in Canada.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it