Exploring Relationship Functioning in Premarital Caucasian and Latino/a Couples: Recognizing and Valuing Cultural Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article was to conduct a culturally informed study of patterns of relationship functioning in premarital Caucasian and Latino/a couples. Two strategies were used in this study. First, the applicability of an expanded version of Gottman’s Cascade Model of Relationship Dissolution was analyzed by using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). In addition, MANOVA analyses were conducted to explore in greater detail differences between ethnic groups. SEM results indicated that the expanded version of the Cascade Model was not statistically equivalent for the Caucasian and Latino/a samples because specific paths were not significant for the Latino/a sample. Based on MANO VA analyses, significant differences were found between the samples in variables that are likely to be influenced by important values of the Latino/a culture. A discussion based on the literature on ethnic minorities is included, highlighting the importance of developing culturally centered models to better understand the relational dynamics of premarital Latino/a couples.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".