MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077735750 · doi:10.2224/sbp.2005.33.3.273

MARITAL SATISFACTION AND SELF-DECEPTION: RECONSTRUCTION OF RELATIONSHIP HISTORIES AMONG OLDER ADULTS

2005· article· en· W2077735750 on OpenAlexaff
Norm O’Rourke, Philippe Cappeliez

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Behavior and Personality An International Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySpouseMultivariate analysis of variancePerceptionRecallSocial psychologyMultivariate analysisMarital statusVariance (accounting)DeceptionDevelopmental psychologyDemographyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship among marital aggrandizement, satisfaction with life, and marital satisfaction is examined among an international sample of older adults (N = 400). Three distinct groupings are identified on the basis of cluster analysis. A minority of participants emerged as dissatisfied with life and marriage. This grouping (the distraught) holds realistic perceptions of their relationship history. The same is true for a larger grouping identified as the realistically content who appear satisfied with life and marriage. The largest grouping (Pollyannas) also appears highly satisfied with life and marriage. Of note, these participants also engage in selective recall negating the occurrence of negative events and perceptions of their spouse and marriage. Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) suggests that Pollyannas convey a tendency for self-deception that distinguishes them from the other two groupings. These results are discussed in terms of demographic trends and directions for future research.

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)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Behavior and Personality An International JournalSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207