Pathways and Patterns for Communication with Intimate Partners: Men’s Retrospectives After a Relationship Breakdown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective communication is key to the quality of men’s intimate partner relationships. The current study examines men’s pathways and patterns for communication with intimate partners. Based on interviews with 47 Canadian and Australian participants (26–70-years-old; M = 40.87, SD = 10.59) who had experienced a relationship breakdown[s], three themes were derived: (a) Breaking through after breaking up, (b) Detailing deficiencies, and (c) Building skills and strategies. Breaking through after breaking up mapped men’s pathways in retrospectively evaluating and addressing their communication. Men’s self-work focussed on knowing themselves to more authentically communicate with partners. Detailing deficiencies included self-censoring characterized by men’s reticence to communicate their feelings for fear of conflict and/or the relationship ending. Building skills and strategies highlighted temporal dimensions of communication wherein men idealized regular formal check-ins with partners to discuss, and when necessary adjust the relationship. Connections between masculinities and men’s communication are discussed to guide tailored relationship programs for men.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".