Why Did It End? Breakup Reasons of Youth of Different Gender, Dating Stages, and Ages
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
Romantic breakups are common among youths. Yet “why” they occur is not well understood. In adolescence and emerging adulthood, unique characteristics of romantic participation call for investigation of breakups from a developmental perspective. Our principal objective was to map out breakup reasons of adolescents and emerging adults, accounting for relevant theory and research on both age-groups. We considered the role of age, gender, and dating stage (casual vs. serious) on youths’ breakup reasons. Results revealed a five-factor scale with affiliation, intimacy, autonomy, infidelity, and status as unique factors. Consistent with theory and research, we found similarities and differences in how youths of different age, dating stage, and gender endorse these reasons. These findings are consistent with the notion that breakups stem from a failure of romantic relationships to meet youths’ emerging romantic needs, and that there is considerable continuity in these relational dimensions from adolescence into emerging adulthood.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it