Understanding the Decision-Making Process of Women to Engage in Cohabiting Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the extensive literature on cohabitation, there is scant literature that explores women’s decisions to engage in cohabitation. Drawing on the theory of planned behaviour and a qualitative research approach, this article explores the decision-making processes among women to engage in cohabitation. For some women, cohabitation was preceded by a clear conversation about the intention to marry. The second group of women described cohabitation as an expression of autonomy and independence by rejecting traditionally prescribed conventions such as marriage. When the promise of marriage fails to materialise, some women become increasingly disillusioned and opt to terminate their co-residence relationships in order to negotiate marriage as an option with their partners. This article utilised purposively and snowball sampling to gather data and this was through semi-structured interviews. This data was analysed thematically, and the results show a preponderance of a desire for autonomy that is checked by the harsh persistence of disempowering narratives. Further research is needed to establish patterns of autonomy in cohabiting partners.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".