Gender and personality differences in conceptions of love: An interpersonal theory analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three studies tested predictions derived from interpersonal theory regarding the relations among gender, personality, and conceptions of love. It was predicted that women would conceptualize love in terms of its nurturant varieties, namely companionate kinds of love, whereas men would conceptualize love in terms of non‐nurturant varieties, namely passionate kinds of love. Only the latter prediction received consistent support. Both women and men held a companionate conception of love, with the exception that women assigned higher ratings to friendship love and sisterly love. Regarding personality, it was predicted that high‐nurturance traits (e.g., warm‐agreeable) would be associated with a companionate conception of love whereas low‐nurturance traits (e.g., cold‐hearted) would be associated with a passionate conception of love. Results supported predictions. It was concluded that women's and men's conceptions of love are more similar than has been assumed and that the two robust interpersonal dimensions of dominance and nurturance hold considerable promise for integrating the literature on personality and gender differences in love.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it