MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Longitudinal Association of Marital Confidence, Time Spent Together, and Marital Satisfaction

2012· article· en· W2159648149 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew D. Johnson, Jared R. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Process · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalPsychologyAssociation (psychology)Marital relationshipDemographySocial psychologyClinical psychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using three waves of dyadic data collected at 18-month intervals from a community-based sample of 610 newly married heterosexual couples (1 220 individuals), we examined the relationship between marital confidence, time spent together, and marital satisfaction using a modified actor-partner interdependence model. Results indicate that after controlling for marital satisfaction and time spent together at Time 1, marital confidence around the time of marriage was associated with marital satisfaction approximately 3 years later. In addition, marital confidence was associated with how much time husbands and wives spent together at Time 2, which was related to marital satisfaction at Time 3. Tests of the mediating paths from marital confidence to marital satisfaction trended toward significance. The results suggest the importance of assessing for relationship confidence when working with couples in the early stages of their relationship.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations72
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily ProcessSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207