Comparisons of close relationships: An evaluation of relationship quality and patterns of attachment to parents, friends, and romantic partners in young adults.
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
Two theoretical models of attachment have been proposed. The trait model conceptualizes attachment as a general personality characteristic of an individual, whereas the context model conceptualizes attachments as relationship-specific. Participant-parent relationship quality, attachment patterns in relationships to friends, and attachment patterns in relationships to romantic partners were examined to determine whether participants experience one general, trait-like attachment orientation or whether attachment patterns are context-specific. A sample of 2,214 young adults (76% female) aged between 17 and 25 years was recruited for participation from psychology courses offered at their university of study. Students completed a survey package including five self-report measures evaluating relational dimensions in relationships to parents, friends, and romantic partners, in addition to one self-report measure of psychological well-being. Participants in couple relationships also completed two self-report measures of dyadic well-being. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses support the conceptualization of attachment patterns as context-specific variables because findings revealed distinctions between attachment patterns/quality of relationship to parents, friends, and romantic partners. Results from regression analyses suggest that such relationships contribute differently to participants’ psychological well-being and dyadic functioning.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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