Spousal Goals, Affect Quality, and Collaborative Problem Solving: Evidence from a Time-Sampling Study With Older 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
Abstract This study utilized up to 27 simultaneous daily-life assessments from 49 husbands and wives (M age = 72 years, M = marriage length = 42 years). Progress on self-focused goals was associated with concurrent increases in positive affect and decreases in negative affect. Progress on joint goals was associated with decreases in negative affect only. Spouses with many joint goals used more collaborative problem-solving strategies, which were rated as very effective. Findings demonstrate the benefits of combining time-varying and stable person-level characteristics when investigating how older spouses navigate their daily lives with implications for aging outcomes. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by a National Institute on Aging Research Grant AG 11715, awarded to Fredda Blanchard-Fields (1948–2010). Christiane A. Hoppmann also gratefully acknowledges the support of the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. The authors would like to thank Daniela Jopp, Stephanie Gunter, Phil Brzenk, and Brendan Finton for their contributions to this study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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