MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515746390 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01106

The Associations of Dyadic Coping and Relationship Satisfaction Vary between and within Nations: A 35-Nation Study

2016· article· en· W2515746390 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Hilpert, Ashley K. Randall, Piotr Sorokowski, David C. Atkins, Agnieszka Sorokowska, Khodabakhsh Ahmadi, Ahmad M. Aghraibeh, Richmond Aryeetey, Anna Bertoni, Karim Bettache, Marta Błażejewska, Guy Bodenmann, Jessica Borders, Tiago Bortolini, Marina Butovskaya, Felipe Nalon Castro, Hakan Çetınkaya, Diana Cunha, Daniel David, Anita DeLongis, Fahd A. Dileym, Alejandra del Carmen Domínguez Espinosa, Silvia Donato, Daria Dronova, Seda Dural, Maryanne L. Fisher, Tomasz Frąckowiak, Evrim Gülbetekin, Aslıhan Hamamcıoğlu Akkaya, Karolina Hansen, Wallisen Tadashi Hattori, Ivana Hromatko, Raffaella Iafrate, Bawo Onesirosan James, Feng Jiang, Charles Kimamo, David B. King, Fırat Koç, Amos Laar, Fívia de Araújo Lopes, Rocío Martínez, Norbert Meskó, Natalya Molodovskaya, Khadijeh Moradi, Zahrasadat Motahari, Jean Carlos Natividade, Joseph Mpeera Ntayi, Oluyinka Ojedokun, Mohd Sofian Omar Fauzee, Ike E. Onyishi, Barış Özener, Anna Paluszak, Alda Portugal, Ana Paula Relvas, Muhammad Rizwan, Svjetlana Salkičević, Ivan Sarmány-Schuller, Eftychia Stamkou, Stanislava Stoyanova, Denisa Šukolová, Nina Sutresna, Meri Tadinac, Andero Teras, Edna Lúcia Tinoco Ponciano, Ritu Tripathi, Nachiketa Tripathi, Mamta Tripathi, Noa Vilchinsky, Feng Xu, Maria Emília Yamamoto, Gyesook Yoo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversitySaint Mary's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCoping (psychology)Social psychologyPsychological interventionMultilevel modelGlobePartner effectsCross-cultural studiesTransactional leadershipDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations83
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207