Worldview Orientations in Close Relationships: Development and Initial Validation of the Contract-Covenant Continuum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Christian approaches to close relationships in North America have been understood in covenantal terms between married persons, dating couples, and close friends, and have been contrasted with contractual or ego-based ones. Covenantal approaches value the dyad, interdependence, faith community involvement, and communication strategies to engender long-term commitment whereas contractual approaches value self, independence, negotiation for personal needs, and freedom to exit relationships when costs outweigh benefits. The authors gathered survey data among 713 subjects over three studies in order to develop a 22-item scale to measure covenantal and contractual worldview dimensions in close relationships. Scale items were examined for inter-item reliability, factor structure, evidence for construct validity, and predictive power of relational satisfaction. The resulting Contract-Covenant Continuum showed good reliability and multi-dimensionality. Evidence was also gathered to support concurrent, construct, and criterion validity as well as the scale's capacity to predict relational satisfaction and equity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".