MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gender and relationships: Influences on agentic and communal behaviors

2004· article· en· W2002860463 on OpenAlexaff
Eun Jung Suh, D. S. Moskowitz, Marc A. Fournier, David C. Zuroff

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonal Relationships · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRomanceSocializationSocial psychologyInterpersonal communicationDevelopmental psychologyAgency (philosophy)Interpersonal relationship

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present research examined the moderating influence of situations involving friends and romantic partners on gender differences in interpersonal behaviors reflecting agency and communion. Behavior was studied in three situations varying in social role and dyadic gender composition: same‐sex friendships, opposite‐sex friendships, and romantic relationships. To obtain multiple events representing each relationship situation, participants recorded information about their interpersonal interactions during a 20‐day period using an event‐contingent recording procedure. Results indicated gender differences consistent with gender stereotypes when men and women were interacting with same‐sex friends; men with men were more dominant and women with women were more agreeable. In interactions with romantic partners, gender differences in communal behavior were opposite to gender stereotypes; women were less agreeable and more quarrelsome than men with their romantic partners. Results are considered in reference to developmental socialization theory, social role theory, and studies of gender differences in marital relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonal RelationshipsSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207