MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2304052148 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n4p188

What Keeps Dissatisfied People in Marriage?

2016· article· en· W2304052148 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masoumeh Esmaeeli, Maryam Gholamzadeh Jofreh, Abdollah Shafiabady

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial exchange theoryPsychologyValue (mathematics)Social psychologyQualitative researchMarital relationshipDevelopmental psychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marital satisfaction and stability in course of couple relationship has been the topic of interest in many studies. Some of couples are dissatisfied with their marriage and they end in divorce. Dissatisfying marriages are not always ended. In order to find better understanding on the reasons behind the formation, continuous and end of relationship, social exchange theory is usually utilized. The purpose of this study was to find out the factors that caused dissatisfied married individuals to hold their relationship together. This study was a qualitative study that used semi-structured deep interview. 12 married individuals were selected by purposeful sampling. Data analysis addressed the content of marriage functions among Iranian married individual with low marital satisfaction. 6 main themes and 20 subthemes were emerged from the data. These main themes revealed marriage functions of psychological, child- related, value- related, sex, social, and economic which made participants hold their marriage together. It was explained in the discussion part of the study that how some of basic components of social exchange theory differ between our participants in the current study.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207