The good, the bad, and the ugly: Lay attitudes and perceptions of polyamory
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
Although consensual non-monogamies have grown in exposure and popularity among both the public and academics, they remain largely marginalized and stigmatized. While some research has examined individuals’ perceptions of non-monogamies as a whole, few have focused specifically on perceptions of polyamory. The aim of this study was to explore and render explicit such attitudes and perceptions using an inductive approach to research. Online unsolicited narratives were sought for the purpose of this study. A total of 482 comments posted in response to three articles on the topic of polyamory were collected and analyzed using thematic analysis. Five overarching themes were identified: polyamory as 1) valid and beneficial; 2) unsustainable; 3) perverse, amoral, and unappealing; 4) acceptable; and 5) deficient. The findings provide insight on individuals’ reactions to polyamorous relationships and beliefs surrounding monogamy, and are further discussed in light of previous research on stigma, and of contemporary discourses on relationships, love, and commitment.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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