MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740565659 · doi:10.1177/1948550617722834

Wanting to Stay and Wanting to Go

2017· article· en· W2740565659 on OpenAlex
Samantha Joel, Geoff MacDonald, Elizabeth Page‐Gould

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Psychological and Personality Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyAmbivalenceAnxietyRomancePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research examined the subjective experience of deciding whether or not to end a romantic relationship. In Study 1, open-ended reasons for wanting to stay in a relationship versus leave were provided by three samples and categorized by trained coders, resulting in 27 distinct reasons for wanting to stay (e.g., emotional intimacy, investment) and 23 reasons for wanting to leave (e.g., conflict, breach of trust). In Study 2, we examined endorsement of specific stay/leave reasons among participants currently contemplating either a breakup or a divorce. Most stay and leave reasons mapped onto global ratings of satisfaction and commitment. Attachment anxiety was associated with stronger endorsement of many reasons for wanting to both stay and leave. Further, many participants were simultaneously motivated to both stay in their relationships and leave, suggesting that ambivalence is a common experience for those who are thinking about ending their relationships.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0030.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.398 · 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