Romantic attachment and relationship functioning in same-sex couples.
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
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.
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 it