MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133314073 · doi:10.1080/00224490509552264

Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long‐term relationships

2005· article· en· W2133314073 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAssociation (psychology)Sexual relationshipClinical psychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyHuman sexuality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the association between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction over time to provide evidence about possible causal explanations for the association between two variables. Eighty-seven individuals in long-term relationships completed measures of sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction at 2 times 18 months apart. There was only limited evidence, based on exploratory analysis, to support either the hypothesis that changes in a relationship satisfaction lead to changes in sexual satisfaction or the hypothesis that changes in sexual satisfaction lead to changes in relationship satisfaction. However, sexual satisfaction and relationship satisfaction wer found to change concurrently. The quality of intimate communication accounted for part of the concurrent changes in relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction. I discuss the results in terms of the need to develop more complex models depicting the longitudinal associations between relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction.

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)0.008
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.285 · 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