MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109954936 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2011.10.012

A study on relationship between emotional maturity and marital satisfaction

2012· article· en· W2109954936 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seyed Esmael Mosavi, Mohammad Reza Iravani

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIslamic Azad University
KeywordsPsychologyMaturity (psychological)Social psychologyApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marriage is one of the most important events of people's lives and when it happens, it could have both positive and negative consequences. In this paper, we present an empirical study to investigate the relationship between emotional maturity and marital satisfaction using a classical questionnaire. The study chooses all people aged 25-35 who live in region 10 of the city of Esfahan, Iran. The proposed study splits the main hypothesis into five detailed questions, which considers the relationship between marital satisfaction with five other components including emotional instability, return emotional, social maladjustment, close character and lack of independence. The results indicate a negative correlation between marital satisfaction and these items and t-student confirmed that there are meaningful relationship between marital satisfaction and emotional instability, return emotional, close character and lack of independence but there is no meaningful relationship between marital satisfaction and social maladjustment. In summary, the survey concluded that there is meaningful relationship between marital satisfaction and emotional maturity.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207