Drawing the Line: The Development of a Comprehensive Assessment of Infidelity Judgments
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
Infidelity is a leading cause of relationship discord and dissolution, and couples generally report expectations to maintain monogamy. However, a majority of men and women report engaging in some form of infidelity at least once in their lives. Research assessing judgments of the behaviors that constitute infidelity is lacking. The three studies reported here advanced the literature by developing and validating the Definitions of Infidelity Questionnaire (DIQ), a comprehensive measure examining infidelity judgments. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses indicated four factors to the scale: sexual/explicit behaviors, technology/online behaviors, emotional/affectionate behaviors, and solitary behaviors. Investigation of the psychometric properties demonstrated the DIQ to be reliable and valid. Participants agreed that sexual/explicit behaviors comprised infidelity to the largest extent, whereas other types of behaviors (technology/online behaviors, emotional/affectionate behaviors, and solitary behaviors) were judged as comprising infidelity to a lesser extent. Men reported more permissive judgments than did women. This study provides insights regarding operationalizing infidelity and identifying areas of ambiguity and consensus. Implications of the findings for educators and practitioners working with individuals in intimate relationships 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 | 0.011 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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