MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052025244 · doi:10.2466/pr0.103.2.535-544

Spouse Selection: Important Criteria and Age Preferences of an Iranian Sample

2008· article· en· W2052025244 on OpenAlexaff
Siamak Samani, Bruce A. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Reports · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpousePsychologySelection (genetic algorithm)Sample (material)Social psychologyClinical psychologyComputer scienceSociologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance of different criteria and age preference in spouse selection for single and married young Iranian adults was examined. The sample included 104 married (49 male, 55 female) and 112 single (51 male, 61 female) students. A 26-item scale developed for this study included 4 items related to demographic factors, 3 items on preferences for the ideal age of marriage, and 19 Likert-type items asking about criteria important for spouse selection. Analysis indicated that, in Iran, commitment, chastity, refinement, and health are four important criteria for spouse selection among male and female and single and married persons. Also, experience of marriage for married males may increase maturity, social prestige, family background, having a job, and age as criteria for choosing a spouse. On the other hand, marriage experience for females may decrease the importance of social skills, housekeeping, and autonomy for selecting a spouse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ReportsSame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207