Modeling support provision in intimate relationships.
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
Whereas supportive interactions are usually studied from the perspective of recipients alone, the authors used a dyadic design to incorporate the perspectives of both provider and recipient. In 2 daily diary studies, the authors modeled provider reports of support provision in intimate dyads over several weeks. The 1st involved couples experiencing daily stressors (n = 79); the 2nd involved couples experiencing a major professional stressor (n = 196). The authors hypothesized that factors relating to (a) recipients (their requests for support, moods, and stressful events), (b) providers (their moods and stressful events), (c) the relationship (relationship emotions and history of support exchanges), and (d) the stressor (daily vs. major stressors) would each predict daily support provision. Across both studies, characteristics of providers, recipients, and their relationship emerged as key predictors. Implications for theoretical models of dyadic support processes are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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