The lives of asexual individuals outside of sexual and romantic relationships: education, occupation, religion and community
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
Twenty-seven U.S. and Canadian participants who answered a call for interviews about asexual identity were asked about non-sexual aspects of their lives, including education, occupation, community and religion. Many participants indicated that being asexual was not a factor in school or college. Others mentioned advantages such as having more time for studies and fewer distractions, and disadvantages such as feeling lonely, left out or anxious. For some participants, asexuality was not an issue in the work setting, often because it is not visible or not asked about. Others worked in settings with supportive co-workers, had more time for work or were not distracted by office romances. Half the participants were part of thriving social networks, although about one-third indicated that their community was very small and many were introverts. Three-quarters of the sample identified as atheists or followed spiritual traditions that were not directly associated with mainstream religions. They also brought up the lack of asexual role models in the media. Participants reflected on how asexual identity interfaced with societal roles and the results are discussed in light of the foregrounding of sex and relationships in North America.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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