MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attachment styles and relationship quality: Actual, perceived, and ideal partner matching

2010· article· en· W1965345248 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 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySimilarity (geometry)Social psychologyMatching (statistics)Ideal (ethics)PerceptionAnxietyAttachment theoryQuality (philosophy)MathematicsComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attachment dimension matching in dating relationships and how matching relates to relationship quality were investigated. Across 2 studies, individuals preferred similar but more secure partners (lower anxiety and lower avoidance) as reflected by their ideals. In Study 1, greater similarity between the self and perceptions of the partner's anxiety predicted more positive relationship outcomes (e.g., relationship satisfaction, trust). Similar results were found for ideal–perceived partner avoidance similarity, whereas ideal–perceived partner anxiety similarity was less important. Study 2 involved both partners in the relationship and indicated that relationship outcomes were predicted by the actor's and partner's attachment dimensions as well as by ideal–perceived partner similarity and self–perceived partner similarity.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.337 · 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