What Makes a Relationship Serious? Race, Religion, and Emotions in South Asian Muslim Immigrants’ Romantic Meaning-Making
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract How do sociologists operationalize “romance,” specifically the seriousness or casualness of the romantic relationships of the participants they study? How do research participants themselves understand and define romantic connections in everyday life? Using the case of 80 South Asian Muslim Canadian interviewees and how they used relationship labels like “casual” and “serious” when describing their romantic experiences, this article problematizes the concept of a romantic partnership and bridges sociological conversations about emotions, dating, marriage, and larger discussions about religion, race, gender, and immigration in high-demand religious cultures. Contrary to popular definitions of casual and serious relationships, rather than on sexual intimacy, my participants defined the casualness or seriousness of their relationship based on the marriageability of their partner. Their assessment of a partner’s marriageability rested on the partner’s social compatibility and/or their emotional attachment with the partner. Factors indicating marriageability included race/ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status that many participants perceived to be in tension with emotions. On the one hand, emotional connections brought people from different races and faiths together, motivating participants to overcome external hurdles from family and internal biases. On the other hand, people ended relationships with out-group partners despite being in loving relationships for years because they deemed them to be socially incompatible for marriage. However, emotions are hard to control. Sometimes, the relationship deemed to be the most socially compatible was unsuccessful because of a lack of emotional connection. Instead, the relationship with an out-group partner initially deemed incompatible ended up being emotionally significant and meaningful.
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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it