Parenting Consensual Non-Monogamists’ Perceptions of Parenthood, Intimacy, and Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents partial results of a larger mixed methods study about consensual non-monogamists’ perceptions of their parenting and sexual lifestyle, particularly those involving the transition to parenthood, intimacy and communication. Using The Expanding the Movement for Empowerment and Reproductive Justice lens, six participants completed an online questionnaire and a semi-structured interview guide. Consensual non-monogamists are like other parents, yet they prioritise sexual intimacy over emotional intimacy. Communication is very important for them. The quantitative results support the qualitative ones: the participants had a higher level of parenting sense of competence, and the means for emotional and sexual intimacy were lower for primary partners than for secondary ones. Perinatal health care professionals including nurses need to know more about parenting consensual non-monogamists and their partner(s). More research is warranted with this particular group of parents, especially on their experiences of minority stress, resilience and taking a more intersectional research approach.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".