Consensually Nonmonogamous Clients and the Impact of Mononormativity in Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discourse about mononormativity has increased substantially over the last decade, categorically naming and addressing a North American bias to unintentionally privilege monogamous relationships. The Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association’s code of ethics (CCPA, 2007) outlines a need for counsellors to be sensitive to the diversity of all clients and to refrain from discrimination. The code suggests an ethical imperative to examine one’s values and attitudes when counselling clients who engage in consensual nonmonogamy (CNM). A paucity of understanding exists as to the potential impact a counsellor with a mononormative bias may have on the therapy process. Therapist assumptions, client perceptions, theoretical orientation, and clinical intervention strategies from the perspective of providing therapy to CNM clients will be discussed through a synthesis of the extant literature. Recommendations for counselling practice and suggestions for further research, as well as counselling education aimed at increasing counsellor competence when working with CNM populations, are provided. Implications of mononormativity on the Canadian counselling profession are highlighted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".