Men, relationships and partner-initiated break-ups: A narrative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For men, significant risks associated with partner-initiated break-ups include domestic violence, mental health challenges and difficultly with life transition. This narrative analysis study shares three storylines drawn from interviews with 25 men who experienced a partner-initiated break-up. Ill equipped to stay or to initiate leaving narratives positioned participants as conflict averse, lacking agency and withdrawing emotionally from the partnership and its demise. Victims of circumstance narratives included men who engaged in cyclic arguments and ongoing power struggles with partners, a pattern that often amplified conflict after the break-up. Transitioning these two impasse narratives were some participants whose Accountability and growth storylines highlighted their introspective self-work, aided by resources including professional help to deconstruct, understand, and adjust their behaviours. Making connections to masculinities theory, these findings suggest that tailored interventions, including narrative therapy, might usefully interrupt impasse narratives to aid men's development and healthful transitions through partner-initiated break-ups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 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".