Examining relationship quality across three types of relationship agreements
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
While past studies have measured several indicators of relationship quality in relation to types of relationship agreement, most have not included polyamorous relationships, and have almost exclusively included samples of gay men. The purpose of this study was to address this gap by examining five dimensions of relationship quality and eight dimensions of relationship equity in a sexually diverse Canadian sample (N = 3463) across three types of relationship agreements (monogamous, open, and polyamorous). The data were collected online as part of a larger study. In order to compare relationship types on relationship dimensions, MANCOVAs were computed using age, relationship duration, cohabitation status, sex, sexual orientation, and an interaction term of sex and sexual orientation as control variables. High scores of relationship quality and equity were reported by the overall sample, and scores on all scales did not significantly differ by types of relationship agreements. Overall, these results strongly suggest that these types of relationship agreements are equally healthy viable options.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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