MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502816948 · doi:10.1111/pere.12012

The joys of genuine giving: Approach and avoidance sacrifice motivation and authenticity

2013· article· en· W1502816948 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonal Relationships · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSacrificePsychologySocial psychologyInterpersonal communicationQuality (philosophy)Interpersonal relationshipEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Why do sacrifices undertaken in pursuit of approach and avoidance goals differentially influence well‐being and relationship quality? A cross‐sectional study (Study 1), an experiment (Study 2), and a 2‐week daily experience study (Study 3) demonstrate that the personal and interpersonal outcomes of approach and avoidance sacrifice goals in dating and married relationships are mediated by felt authenticity. When people sacrificed for approach goals such as to make their partner happy, they felt more authentic, in turn contributing to greater personal and relationship well‐being. However, when they sacrificed for avoidance goals such as to avoid conflict, they felt less authentic, in turn detracting from personal and relationship well‐being. Implications for research and theory on motivational processes in close relationships are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it