Patterns and Trends of Same-Sex Partner Choice in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the age and educational homogamy of same-sex couples in Germany over a 20-year period from 1996 to 2015. Data of the Microcensus show that cohabiting same-sex couples are less likely to be homogamous than cohabiting different-sex couples, both in terms of age and education. For same-sex couples, gender matters, male same-sex couples being the most diverse. The analyses thus confirm previous results for other European countries. Hitherto, changes in the homogamy of same-sex couples over time had not been studied in Europe, mainly due to data constraints. However, major changes in the visibility and legal acceptance of same-sex couples suggest that their patterns of partner choice are becoming more similar to those of different-sex couples. Our analyses show that the age difference among female same-sex couples has indeed narrowed over time, converging with the age difference among different-sex couples. For male same-sex couples though, there is no clear trend. In terms of educational homogamy, contrary to our assumption, we find a clear decline among same-sex couples of both genders since the 2000s, making them even more dissimilar to different-sex couples.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".