Theoretical and methodological issues in relationship research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family and relationship researchers ask research questions at the dyadic- or family level, yet analyses are often conducted at the individual level. We review theoretical perspectives relative to studying families and dyads and note how they are connected with dyadic analysis techniques. We note differences in theoretical assumptions underlying the actor–partner interdependence model, the common fate model (CFM), and hybrid models that combine features of both and distinguish between the types of questions each addresses. Using third grade, sixth grade, and age 15 data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study of Early Child Care and Youth Development ( N = 732), we illustrate the value of using CFM and hybrid models to explore how family chaos is associated with couple conflict resolution and child behavior problems. Dyadic- and family-level analyses may offer additional insight into family functioning, and we provide recommendations for the use of CFM in furthering this line of inquiry.
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 | 0.328 | 0.467 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".