Whose fault is it? Blame predicting psychological adjustment and couple satisfaction in couples seeking fertility treatment
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
Infertility bears psychological and relational consequences for couples who face this problem. Few studies have examined the role of self- and partner blaming to explain psychological and relationship adjustment in couple presenting with a fertility problem. This study used a dyadic approach to explore the links between blaming oneself and one's partner and both partners' symptoms of depression and anxiety, and couple satisfaction in 279 couples enrolled in fertility treatments. Partners were questioned about the extent to which they blamed themselves and their partner for the fertility problem. They also completed the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the Index of Psychological Symptoms. Path analyses based on the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model showed that self-blame predicted anxiety and depression symptoms in both men and women. Men's self-blame also predicted their own lower relationship satisfaction, whereas women's self-blame predicted more depression and anxiety in their partner. Partner blame in women predicted their own and their partner lower relationship satisfaction. Women's tendency to blame their partner also predicted their own depression symptoms. Clinical implications of these findings are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it