Exploring Expressions of Marital Love Prototype among Married Urban Malays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to explore the prototype for expressions of marital love among urban Malays. This study applies the process for developing prototypes of love which was adapted by Fehr (1988). Questionnaire consisting of questions relating to personal background, relationship background and list of expressions of marital love were presented to 600 working married urban Malays. Data were analyzed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and found that the list for prototype expressions of marital love were fit using the three component definition as suggested by Sternberg (1986), specifically, intimacy to intimate-sharing expressions, commitment to commitment-faith expressions and passion to romantic-physical expressions. Results showed that expressions for marital love which involve intimate-sharing expressions (e.g. listening to spouse’s emotional outpourings, encouraging spouse, solving problems with spouse) were most desirable compared to romantic-physical expressions which were less desirable (e.g. holding spouse’s waist, giving spouse a massage, caressing spouse). Findings suggest future studies on love within marriage should consider cultural aspects and application of implicit theory as suggested by Fehr (1988).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".