Canadian Men’s Intimate Partner Relationship Break-Ups During COVID-19: Implications for Mental Health Promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 impacted many men’s intimate partner relationships, with distressed and disrupted partnerships consistently featured in commentaries with linkages to mental health challenges. The current study draws from interviews with 23 Canadian-based men, 19–50 years old, who experienced a break-up during COVID-19. Addressing the research question, “What are the connections between masculinities, men’s mental health, and intimate partner relationship break-ups during COVID-19?”, three thematic findings were derived: (1) Virtually Together and Growing Apart, (2) Mentally Trapped, and Failing Fast and Slow, and (3) Introspections and Moving On. Virtually Together and Growing Apart describes two contexts wherein men were either challenged by being physically apart from their partner or increasingly estranged while cohabitating with their partner during COVID-19. Mentally Trapped, and Failing Fast and Slow speaks to the stresses of being socially isolated and anxieties about the future with those tensions flowing to and from men’s relationships. Featured were fast-tracked endings in terms of many participants knowing early-on the partnership was over, amid drawn out finishes wherein men’s relationships gradually ended with the easement of COVID-19 restrictions. Introspections and Moving On varied in that many men were intent on processing and deconstructing all that happened in (and to end) their relationship. Men’s learnings were leveraged through accessing professional and peer supports to promote self-growth and purposefully build healthier intimate partnerships. The study findings affirm the need for gender-responsive mental health promotion programs to equip men with relationship skills, while also underscoring the necessity for services dedicated to addressing post-COVID-19 injuries.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".