Perceptions of partner support among pregnant plurisexual women: A qualitative study
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 partner support is an established determinant of mental health, we know little about bisexual and other plurisexual people's experiences of support from their partners. Further, very limited research has examined how bisexual or plurisexual people experience partner support during pregnancy, a significant life stage for many couples. This paper draws from semi-structured interviews with 29 plurisexual women partnered with different-gender (i.e., cisgender male or transgender) partners to examine women's perceptions of partner support during pregnancy. While participants reported many of the same partner support issues and dynamics that have been described in research with monosexual childbearing women, their experiences as plurisexual women were unique in two regards: a) unconditional acceptance from partners was connected to the partner's support for their plurisexual identities/histories; and b) social integration support often included shared integration into social networks related to their plurisexual experiences, including sexual networks. These findings offer important implications for sexual and relationship therapists, who can play an important role in helping to foster these plurisexual-specific forms of partner support, and in so doing, improve outcomes for women during this significant life stage.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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 it