Associations Between Perceived Support in Older Adult Marriages and Dyadic Covariations in Momentary Affect and Aches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Spousal support within marriage may be particularly important in old age when spouses become more likely to rely on each other's help. However, spousal support does not have to be unanimously positive. In fact, very little is known about covariations in spousal affect and aches as couples engage in their daily routines and environments. METHOD: Up to 27 simultaneous, momentary assessments from 49 older adult married couples (M age = 72 years [60-83]; M relationship duration = 42 years) were used taking into account the perspective of both partners. RESULTS: This study shows that social support within marriage was associated with reduced overall levels of negative affect (NA) but unrelated to positive affect (PA). Interestingly, high spousal support was both associated with reduced overall NA means but also with an increased covariation in NA between partners. No similar covariations were observed for aches and PA. DISCUSSION: Spousal support may be a double-edged sword; it is associated with reduced overall NA, but it may also lead to more permeable boundaries between spouses that seem to be specific to NA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".