Beyond the Dyad: a Review of the Novel Insights Gained From Studying Consensual Non-monogamy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to highlight the major advancements in our understanding of consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships—or intimate relationships between three or more people who are non-exclusive sexually and/or emotionally. We aim to review key insights from research on the benefits (i.e., diversification of need fulfillment) and challenges (i.e., continued stigma) of CNM relationships and how research on CNM highlights some limitations of the existing theories of rela0tionships.Recent findings: The last two decades have seen a trend towards increasing diversity of family structures. Although monogamy remains the most common relationship structure, CNM relationships are increasing in prevalence and in interest to both lay people and researchers. Recent research has begun to uncover novel insights into who is more likely to be drawn to and engage in CNM, how CNM relationships compare to monogamous relationships, and the potential benefits and challenges of engaging in CNM relationships. Summary: While people in CNM relationships still experience stigma, for those who desire such relationships, CNM can be a viable and healthy alternative to monogamy, and may even help people meet more of their needs through diversifying need fulfilment across multiple partners.. Despite this, many existing relationships theories are not inclusive of CNM relationship experiences and aspects of existing theories of positive relationships and sexuality may not extend to people in CNM relationships. Moving forward it is important to consider whether our concepts and measures are inclusive to people in diverse relationships, including those in CNM relationships.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".