A Preliminary Study: What Is Love in a Marriage?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates how urban Malays give meanings to love within marriage. A total of 245 participants attending a compulsory premarital program in Klang Valley, Malaysia agreed to take part in this study. Questionnaires consisting of personal and relationship background were distributed to participants. How participants give meanings to love which exists in a marriage were rated using a self developed prototype list of Subjective Meanings of Marital Love (SMML). Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 19 for Windows (SPSS 19) and Sternberg’s Triangular Love Theory was applied when examining possible components of love which exists within marriage. Results showed that the most agreeable elements of love within marriage belonged to commitment and intimacy component. On the other hand, the least agreeable elements of love within marriage came from the passion component of love. Overall, the most unique results showed that participants reported that love in a marriage as having strong relationship towards God. Findings implied the importance of investigating love experiences which is specific to context of love experience - such as love within marriage and faith aspects when studying close relationships.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".