MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057872028 · doi:10.1177/1066480704271249

Family Beginnings: A Comparison of Spouses’ Recollections of Courtship

2005· article· en· W2057872028 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

VenueThe Family Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourtshipConstruct (python library)PsychologyWishSpouseSocial psychologyQuality (philosophy)Developmental psychologySociologyEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family stories are replete with tales about why spouses married and what occurred. Spouses construct their courtship stories in such a way as to capture the unique quality of their relationship as well as chronicle family beginnings. The purpose of this study is to describe and compare spouses’ recollections concerning the events preceding their marriages and the reasons surrounding their decision to marry. One hundred twenty-four spouses were interviewed. Husbands reported longer courtships and typically made a formal marriage proposal. Wives offered more reasons for marriage in their accounts. Dyadic reasons were reported most often by both spouses for their decisions to marry. The conveyance of courtship stories contributes insight into how spouses wish to recount their relationship history to future generations. Furthermore, the comparison of spousal perspectives leads to greater profundity regarding the construction of a shared account for the decision to marry.

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)0.000
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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.293 · 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