Masculinities and men’s emotions in and after intimate partner relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men's emotions in intimate partner relationships have received little research attention. The current interpretive descriptive study included 30 Canadian-based men to address the research question: What are the connections between masculinities and men's emotions in and after intimate partner relationships? Three inductively derived themes included emergent distressing emotions wherein participants' predominance for holding in abeyance their concerns about the relationship manifested varying levels of emotional stoicism. Within this context most men denied or downplayed and did not express their emotions. When the relationship broke, men were overwhelmed by mixed and weighty break-up emotions comprising diverse and often-times discordant emotions, including sadness, shame, anger, regret and guilt, calling into question men's rationality for deciphering and expressing what was concurrently but inexplicably felt. Shame and anger were prominent emotions demanding the participant's attention to all that happened in and at the end of the relationship. In the third theme, understanding and transitioning after-burn emotions, participant's grief levered their efforts, including soliciting professional help for deconstructing, reframing and expressing their emotions in the aftermath of the partnership ending. The findings contextualise and in some instances counter claims about the utility of men's emotional stoicism by mapping participants' feelings in and after intimate partner 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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".