MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113703143 · doi:10.1080/00223980.2010.548413

Friendship, Real–Ideal Discrepancies, and Well-Being: Gender Differences in College Students

2011· article· en· W2113703143 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFriendshipPsychologyHappinessSocial psychologyRomanceInterpersonal relationshipDevelopmental psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Do men and women have different ideals for their friendships? What do men and women experience when their actual friendship experiences fall short of their ideals? The authors of the current study investigated gender differences in real–ideal same-sex best friendships and friendship discrepancy scores. Correlates of friendship discrepancies were also examined. For this purpose, a sample of 382 college students completed the McGill Friendship Questionnaire (M. J. Mendelson & F. E. Aboud, 1999 Markey, P. M. and Markey, C. N. 2007. Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24: 517–533. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), the Friendship Conflict Scale (M. Demir & L. A. Weitekamp, 2007 Demir, M., zen, A., Achoui, M., Baduni, O., Bilyk, N.Boholst, F. 2010. Friendship and happiness across cultures Manuscript submitted for publication [Google Scholar]), the Need Satisfaction Scale (J. G. La Guardia, R. M. Ryan, C. E. Couchman, & E. L. Deci, 2000 Knobloch-Fedders, L. M. and Knudson, R. M. 2009. Marital ideals and the newly married: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26: 249–271. [Google Scholar]), and the PANAS (D. Watson, L. A. Clark, & A. Tellegen, 1988 Walen, H. R. and Lachman, M. E. 2000. Social support and strain from partner, family, and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17: 5–30. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Results showed that (a) the real and ideal best friendships of women were higher in quality and lower in conflict when compared to those of men; and (b) men's discrepancy scores for friendship quality were significantly higher when compared to women, whereas no differences were obtained on friendship conflict discrepancy scores. Findings also revealed that for both women and men, discrepancy scores were negatively related to friendship satisfaction, happiness, and satisfaction of basic psychological needs. The authors discuss the findings in light of theory, highlight ways to address relationship discrepancies, and make suggestions for future research.

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 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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.344 · 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