Relationship Quality and Health Among Black Same-Sex Male Couples: Protocol for a Symbolic Netnography Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Across a range of studies, health scientists have found that being in a romantic relationship can have positive and negative influences on one's health. A couple's health outcomes are often influenced by relationship quality-or how they perceive the positive or negative character of their relationship. These findings have important implications for how scientists and interventionists may leverage romantic relationships facilitating good health among couples. However, in general, couples research has not included Black same-sex male couples in large enough numbers to make previous studies' findings relevant to them. This represents a gap in the scientific literature and, more importantly, a missed opportunity to understand how romantic relationships influence health for a group that must navigate distinct, multilevel health and social inequities. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) decode and understand the ways in which Black same-sex male couples express their romantic relationships in virtual contexts via symbolic indicators, (2) determine how Black same-sex male couples describe the quality of their romantic relationships, and (3) explore how Black same-sex male couples make meaning of their relationship quality and its impact on their relational and individual health. METHODS: We will use joint dyadic interviews embedded within a symbolic netnography research design to accomplish our aims. We will use grounded theory to analyze our qualitative data. We will then triangulate our findings to determine how well they answer our research questions. RESULTS: This study received ethical approval on October 8, 2020 and we began data collection in November 2020. Results are expected to be available no later than December 31, 2022. CONCLUSIONS: This study will apply novel symbolic netnographic qualitative methods to further our understanding of Black same-sex male couples' romantic relationships and how they contribute to their health. The findings will be used to develop programs to improve Black same-sex male couples' health in community and virtual settings. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/29589.
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 | 0.063 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.024 |
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".