Staying Connected: Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Communication in College Students' Dating Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the features, depth, and quality of communication in heterosexual dating relationships that include computer-mediated communication (CMC). This study examined these features as well as CMC's potential to facilitate self-disclosure and information-seeking. It also evaluated whether partner CMC interactions play a role in partner intimacy and communication quality. Young adults (N = 359; 18-24) attending postsecondary education institutions completed an online survey about their CMC use. To be included in the study, all participants were in established dating relationships at the time of the study and reported daily communication with their partner. CMC was linked to partners' disclosure of nonintimate information. This personal self-disclosure was linked positively to relationship intimacy and communication quality, beyond contributions from face-to-face interactions. Breadth (not depth) of self-disclosure and positively valenced interactions, in particular, proved key to understanding greater levels of intimacy in dating relationships and better communication quality as a function of CMC. CMC provides opportunities for partners to stay connected and to improve the overall quality of their intimacy and communication.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".