Conflict, social support and relationship quality: An observational study of heterosexual, gay male and lesbian couples' communication.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from 42 heterosexual, 46 gay male, and 33 lesbian couples were used to assess the contribution of conflict and support discussions to relationship quality. Couples completed questionnaires, and videotaped discussions were coded for levels of negative and positive behaviors. Correlations showed that behaviors were associated with relationship quality in the expected directions. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses assessed the unique contributions of individual and dyadic behaviors to the variability of relationship quality. The findings indicated that, beyond the contribution of individual negative behaviors in the conflict task, the variables of dyadic positive behaviors in the conflict task, individual positive behaviors in the support task, and perceived help accounted for unexplained variance in relationship quality. There were no differences between types of couples on levels of behaviors or on their contributions to relationship quality.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it