An Examination of Monogamy Values Among Gay Men and the Influence of Masculine Gender Conformity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monogamy values and the influence of masculine conformity were examined using a sample of 154 gay men within the Greater Toronto Area. Monogamy values were measured on four dimensions: emotional monogamy, sexual monogamy, perceptions of monogamy as relationship-enhancing and perceptions of monogamy as a sacrifice. Gay men generally found monogamy to be enhancing, however, they tended to value emotional monogamy more than sexual monogamy. Gay men with traditionally masculine attitudes valued sexual monogamy less than those who held non-traditional attitudes. Emotional monogamy was not associated with masculine attitudes. This relationship of masculine attitudes and monogamy values was moderated by length of longest relationship experienced, religiosity, as well as current relational status. Results are interpreted through evolutionary, social learning and queer theory perspectives to suggest that monogamy values are a multi-faceted construct. Counsellors would benefit by asking questions regarding monogamy values expecting multiple interpretations as well applications.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".