MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The experience of emotion in close relationships: Toward an integration of the emotion-in-relationships and interpersonal script models

2005· article· en· W2046028570 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonal Relationships · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNeglectRomanceInterpersonal relationshipContext (archaeology)Emotion workInterpersonal communicationSocial psychologyEmotion classificationDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose that the study of emotion in close relationships may be advanced through an integration of the emotion-in-relationships model (ERM) with interpersonal script models. In two studies, we tested the hypothesis that people experience emotion when expected patterns of relating are disrupted. We also predicted that the kinds of events that are perceived as disruptive, and the concomitant emotional response, would depend on the relationship context. The results indicated that emotional reactions do vary, depending on the type of relationship in which emotion is experienced. A key finding was that when an individual expresses dissatisfaction, a neglect response from a romantic partner is associated with more negative emotion than a neglect response from a friend. Implications of this finding are discussed. We conclude that interpersonal script models can be fruitfully incorporated into the ERM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.273 · 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