MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112451188 · doi:10.1080/10510970600666834

Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction in Online Romantic Relationships

2006· article· en· W2112451188 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Traci L. Anderson, Tara M. Emmers‐Sommer

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInterpersonal communicationRomanceSocial psychologyInterpersonal relationshipPerceptionComputer-mediated communicationThe InternetComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on traditional theories of interpersonal relationship development and on the hyperpersonal communication theory, this study examined predictors of relationship satisfaction for individuals involved in online romantic relationships. One hundred-fourteen individuals (N = 114) involved in online romantic relationships, and who had only engaged in computer-mediated communication (CMC) with their partners, completed an online questionnaire about their relationships. Intimacy, trust, and communication satisfaction were found to be the strongest predictors of relationship satisfaction for individuals involved in online romances. Additionally, perceptions of relationship variables differed depending on relationship length and time spent communicating. Implications for interpersonal and hyperpersonal communication theories, and future investigation of online relationships, 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations141
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunication StudiesSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207