The experiences of consensually non-monogamous patients accessing healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals who practice consensual non-monogamy (CNM) face a variety of challenges in the healthcare system, from administrative barriers to negative comments to overt discrimination to refusal of care. It is estimated that up to 20% of adults in Canada and the United States have engaged in CNM during their lifetime, and public awareness of CNM is increasing (Haupert et al., 2017). However, the provision of pertinent education for healthcare providers (HCPs), as well as research into this type of relationship, remains rudimentary at best and this has resulted in a lack of knowledge, understanding, and general sensitivity to the healthcare needs of these individuals. This lack of awareness, in combination with a general dearth of sexual health training for HCPs, and a societal privileging of monogamy, most often results in negative healthcare experiences for those individuals who practice CNM. This review explores existing research into the healthcare experiences of adults who practice CNM, and it offers suggestions for enabling a better understanding of CNM by HCPs.,
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".