Links between attachment orientations and dispositional and diary–based measures of disclosure in dating couples: A study of actor and partner effects
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
Issues concerning the influence of attachment characteristics on own and partner’s disclosure were addressed using a sample of 113 couples in medium–term dating relationships. Individual differences in attachment were assessed in terms of relationship anxiety and avoidance. Disposition to disclose was assessed using questionnaire measures of self–disclosure, relationship–focused disclosure, and the ability to elicit disclosure from the partner; in addition, structured diaries were used to assess aspects of disclosure (amount, intimacy, emotional tone, and satisfaction) in the context of couples’ everyday interactions. Couple–level analyses showed that avoidance strongly predicted dispositional measures of disclosure, whereas anxiety (particularly partner’s anxiety) was related to negative evaluations of everyday interactions. Interactive effects of attachment dimensions and gender were also obtained, highlighting the complexity of communication behavior. The results are discussed in terms of the goals and strategies associated with working models of attachment.
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 | 0.000 |
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