Family and consensual non‐monogamy: Parents' perceptions of benefits and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study explores the perspectives of parents in open or polyamorous relationships with regards to challenges and benefits of practicing consensual non‐monogamy (CNM). Background Studies show that about one in five people, both in Canada and the United States, have been involved in a CNM relationship in their lifetime, a proportion that is even higher among today's young adults. While we know that many of those people have children, little research has focused on the experiences of parents practicing CNM. Method This article begins to fill this gap, drawing on 34 individual semi‐structured interviews with Canadian parents involved in CNM relationships and their partners. The author explores the benefits and challenges associated with raising children in the context of CNM, as experienced by the participants. Results The vast majority of participants argued that the benefits of being polyamorous or in an open relationship considerably outweighed the difficulties they encountered. Six overarching themes emerged from the participants' discourses, namely: (1) social acceptance and legal protection, (2) coming out to children, (3) time management, (4) reconciling family obligations and personal needs, (5) it takes a village to raise children, and (6) teaching important values to children. Conclusion Ultimately, this study shows that parents practicing CNM perceive their relationship model as mostly beneficial for themselves, as parents, and for their family.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".