Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe objective of the present study was to provide validity evidence for the scores from the Romantic Relationship Perfectionism Scale. Results indicate a two-factor structure, adequate reliability, and overall good convergent, concurrent, discriminant, and incremental validity evidence. The strengths and limitations of this measure are discussed.Keywordsromantic perfectionismfactor structurereliabilitytest validity NotesThis article is dedicated to the memory of beloved colleague Melody Matte, who sadly passed away during its preparation.The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/orPUBLICation of this article.The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/orPUBLICation of this article: Funding for this study was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.1. The two-factor solution with four subfactors included Self-Oriented Romantic Perfectionism (Concern with proper behavior—Items 1, 4, and 9; and Concern with mistakes—Items 6, 7, 11, and 12) and Other-Oriented Romantic Perfectionism (Disappointment of partner’s behavior—Items 2, 3, 5, and 8; and Expectations toward partner—Items 10, 13, and 14). The four-factor solution included the four subfactors described above and their respective items. For both the four-factor model and the two-factor model with four subfactors, Items 5 and 8 were correlated as they shared content and this correlation improved the model fit.Additional informationNotes on contributorsMelody MatteMelody Matte was a PhD candidate in the field of Clinical Psychology at the University of Ottawa, Canada. Her research interests included romantic attachment, romantic perfectionism, dyadic adjustment, and intimate violence.Marie-France LafontaineMarie-France Lafontaine, PhD, is associate professor at the School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Canada, and is Director of the Couple Research Laboratory. Her research interests include couple functioning, romantic attachment, intimate violence, self-injury, heterosexual and homosexual romantic relationships, and physical health.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".