Dyadic Interrelations in Lifespan Development and Aging: How Does 1 + 1 Make a Couple? – Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lifespan development and aging do not take place in a vacuum. It is increasingly recognized that others, who may be very familiar such as marital partners, often play a key role in shaping the developmental trajectories of their spouses. Further, this shaping seems at least partially dependent on the prolonged interactions that result in a high level of familiarity that is conducive to affecting the feelings, actions and reactions of the other member of the dyad. The studies comprising this special series on dyadic relationships tackle a number of specific mechanisms by targeting 2 domains of functioning that are central to successful aging, namely aspects of cognitive functioning and subjective well-being. The 4 papers adopt a range of methodologies, from an experimental session to short- and longer-term longitudinal observational studies. The authors of these articles offer novel insights into the theoretical underpinnings of spousal interrelations as well as how to approach such issues analytically. The closing discussion article draws out some of the underlying themes and highlights the important promises, but also the distinct challenges, of research on couples and dyads. Key avenues for future research are outlined, especially adapting principles of an epidemiological approach to understanding cognitive aging, broadly defined. These promise to extend our understanding of dyadic interrelations in lifespan development and aging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".