Perceptions of partner support among pregnant plurisexual women: A qualitative study
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".