Gay and Lesbian Partnership: Evidence from Multiple Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large social science literature documents partnership rates and correlates of partnership among heterosexual individuals. This paper presents the first systematic empirical analysis of partnership, cohabitation, and official âdomestic partnerâ registrations among self-identified gay men and lesbians using four independent, large, population based data sources, mostly in California. The data indicate that 30-45 percent of gay men are in a cohabiting partnership, while about 50-60 percent of lesbians are partnered. Across the four samples, white and highly educated gay men and lesbians are more likely to be partnered. We also find that almost half of partnered lesbians report being registered officially with the government, while fewer than a quarter of partnered gay men are registered. Of partnered gay men and lesbians, those who officially registered report longer relationship durations and are more likely to have ever been legally married. Overall, our results advance the literature on the determinants of household formation and provide the first estimates of factors associated with being officially registered in a same-sex domestic partnership.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".