The Fluid and Blurred Boundaries of Love: Challenging Mononormative Bias in Counselling to Support a Multitude of Monogamies and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consensual non-monogamy, or romantic pluralism as I prefer to call it, is increasing in acceptance and visibility in Western society. In response, institutions like academia and helping professions like counselling are working to respond appropriately by challenging mononormative bias, the presumed superiority of monogamy and its associated scripts, for the sake of romantically plural individuals and families. However, the rising popularity of these relationship styles and factors like high divorce and infidelity rates among monogamous couples are influencing the expressions and practices of monogamy as well: the line between monogamy and romantic pluralism is blurring on the romantic spectrum and in everyday life. Unfortunately, the literature tends to dichotomise romantic pluralism and monogamy, leaving a gap in evidence-based guidance for meeting the needs of contemporary monogamous individuals and families. To help bridge this gap, challenging mononormative bias and complementary non-dualistic therapeutic approaches prepare counsellors in meeting the diverse needs of clients identifying anywhere along the romantic spectrum.
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 | 0.028 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".