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
The primary objective of the study was to increase understanding of interpersonal dimensions of stress and coping within married couples. Our sample included 82 couples living in a stepfamily context. Data were collected using structured telephone interviews and twice-daily questionnaires for a period of 1 week. Using matched-pair hierarchical linear modeling analysis, the study examined how stress and coping processes unfold over the course of a given day and across days within couples. First, we investigated antecedents of empathic responding, a form of relationship-focused coping. Second, we examined the role of empathic responding in within-couple variations in marital tension across days. We found that when greater personal significance was attached to family stressors, husbands and wives tended to increase their use of empathic responding. Also considered were the contextual effects of marital adjustment on how family stressors are experienced and managed by couples. The results indicate a link between marital adjustment and the use of empathic responding for both husbands and wives within couples. As well, the study suggests that marital adjustment plays an important role in determining whether the negative effects of stress will persist across days. Higher use of empathic responding was found to be associated with lower levels of next-day marital tension. When relational outcomes are considered, empathic responding may represent an adaptive way of coping with everyday stress. Our findings indicate that examination of relationship-focused coping may add to the theoretical and explanatory power of current models of stress and coping.
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 | 0.001 |
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