Romantic attachment and relationship functioning in same-sex couples.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was designed to investigate links between dimensions of romantic attachment and relationship functioning in a cross-sectional sample of people in same-sex relationships, with the goals of replicating basic findings from research on heterosexual couples and advancing understanding of unique issues faced by same-sex couples. The sample included 274 female couples, 188 male couples, 34 women whose female partners did not participate, and 39 men whose male partners did not participate. Participants were recruited from geographically diverse regions of the United States and Canada and provided data by responding to pencil-and-paper surveys. Attachment insecurity in both self and partner were linked with poor relationship functioning across a range of variables (satisfaction, commitment, trust, communication, problem intensity). The pattern of results was identical for women and men, but the effects were stronger in male couples for some associations between attachment variables and indices of positive relationship functioning. Monogamy was positively associated with relationship quality only when participants or their partners reported moderate or high levels of attachment anxiety. Contrary to hypothesis, attachment did not moderate links between minority stressors and relationship functioning.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".