MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096335356 · doi:10.1177/0961463x11413195

Dyadic conflict in goal-relevant activities affects well-being and psychological functioning in employed parents: Evidence from daily time-samples

2013· article· en· W2096335356 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

VenueTime & Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersArmy Research OfficeUniversité de Fribourg
KeywordsPsychologyExperience sampling methodGoal pursuitWell-beingDevelopmental psychologyActivities of daily livingGoal settingSocial psychologySubjective well-beingPsychotherapistHappiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the link between dyadic conflicts in goal-relevant activities and well-being using simultaneous daily life assessments from 59 employed parents who participated in a one-week time-sampling study. Findings indicate that partnerships characterized by conflicts regarding the simultaneous pursuit of goal-relevant activities are associated with low spousal affective well-being and psychological functioning as compared to partnerships allowing for a simultaneous pursuit of goals. The results of this study speak to the importance of investigating the interdependence among the daily activities of multiple actors when examining well-being and psychological functioning in employed parents.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.264 · 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