Factors limiting romantic relationship formation for individuals with early psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many young adults with early psychosis (EP) desire to engage in a romantic relationship, many report having difficulties in engaging in such a relationship. However, almost no research has been conducted on factors potentially explaining impairments in their ability to form romantic relationships. AIM: To compare an EP single young adult sample with single students or students in stable romantic relationships on factors that can cause difficulties in romantic relationship initiation processes METHODS: Cross-sectional study comparing these three groups (n = 83) on self-esteem, attachment, social functioning and perceived difficulties in dating. RESULTS: No significant group differences were found on self-esteem, although lack of confidence was the second most frequent reason evoked by EP participants when asked why they were single. EP participants had greater attachment preoccupation than students involved in a relationship. Single EP individuals rated their social interaction abilities higher compared with single students, but did not engage in social interactions more often. Both single EP participants and single students had more negative perceptions of their intimacy abilities and fewer intimacy behaviours compared with participants involved in a relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Potential interventions to improve EP young adult's capacity to engage in romantic relationships could target perception of their interaction skills, preoccupation about being loved, negative perception of their intimacy abilities, frequency of intimacy related behaviours and lack of confidence.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".