A labor of love? Emotion work in intimate relationships
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
Drawing on relational developmental systems and gender relations perspectives, this study analyzed data from 1,932 heterosexual couples from Waves 1 and 2 of the German Family Panel to answer three questions: (1) What are the longitudinal associations between male and female partners’ emotion work provision and relationship satisfaction? (2) Are there gender differences in associations between emotion work and relationship satisfaction? (3) Does autonomy moderate associations among these focal variables? An actor–partner interdependence model revealed emotion work was linked to heightened future relationship satisfaction, and female partners’ emotion work was the strongest predictor of both partners’ relationship satisfaction. Latent variable interactions demonstrated male partners’ emotion work was linked to female partners’ heightened relationship satisfaction only when men also reported high levels of autonomy. Emotion work may be a “labor of love” that builds future relationship satisfaction while under the differential “management” of autonomous self-representation and gender norms of affective care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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