Mom, dad, meet my mate: An evolutionary perspective on the introduction of parents and mates
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
Many studies focus on the role of parents in the selection of mates, with most showing that parents have influence, albeit variable, in this process. Within Western societies, individuals often present a potential mate to their parents. This meeting represents a turning point, signifying that one is serious about the potential mate becoming a long-term, committed partner. Although this introduction of parents and possible mate is important, there has been no prior investigation into its timing, or specific reasons (other than signifying commitment) why an individual would want to orchestrate the meeting. Using an evolutionary psychology framework, we hypothesized that individuals are motivated to bring home their mates in order to seek parental feedback and approval, as well as indicate to their mate that they are serious about the relationship. We also hypothesized individuals want to meet their new partner’s parents for insight into how their potential mate will look when older, their future health, and potential familial resources that will be available. Our findings generally supported our predictions. We also examined the influence of attachment style and birth order on the timing of the introduction, but found minimal influence for these factors.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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