Intimacy Expectations in Same-Sex Friendships: A Prototype Interaction-Pattern Model.
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
A prototype interaction-pattern model of intimacy expectations was proposed. The central tenet of this model was that people develop knowledge of the patterns of relating that are likely to produce intimacy in a same-sex friendship. Further, it was posited that these interaction patterns are structured as prototypes, such that some patterns of relating are regarded as more likely to create a sense of intimacy than others. Support for this model was found in 6 studies. Interaction patterns depicting self-disclosure, emotional support, and the like were considered more prototypical of intimacy expectations than patterns depicting shared activities and practical support. Regarding gender, women rated intimacy interaction patterns higher than did men, particularly prototypical patterns. However, women and men agreed that prototypical interaction patterns were more indicative of intimacy in a friendship than nonprototypical patterns. Implications for the controversy over whether women's friendships are more intimate than men's are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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