MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742746476 · doi:10.1080/15299716.2017.1344177

Pregnant Plurisexual Women's Sexual and Relationship Histories across the Life Span: A Qualitative Study

2017· article· en· W2742746476 on OpenAlexaff
Lori E. Ross, Lesley A. Tarasoff, Abbie E. Goldberg, Corey E. Flanders

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bisexuality · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHeterosexismPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychological interventionLesbian

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plurisexual women (that is, those with the potential for attraction to more than one gender) experience unique issues associated with forming and maintaining intimate relationships. In particular, plurisexual women, unlike monosexual women, navigate choices and decisions related to the gender of their partners throughout their lifetime, and may experience a variety of social pressures and constraints that influence these decisions. However, previous research on women's sexual and relationship trajectories has largely focused on adolescence and young adulthood, and therefore we know little about the experiences of plurisexual women at other life stages. The aim of this study was to profile the lifetime sexual and relationship trajectories of 29 plurisexual, different-gender partnered women as described during pregnancy. We identified three primary types of trajectories: women who predominantly partnered with men, women who partnered with men and women about equally, and women who predominantly partnered with women, and found that various contextual factors, including heterosexism and monosexism, constrained women's opportunities for partnering with women. Implications for social and clinical interventions are discussed.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BisexualitySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207