MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800324913 · doi:10.1111/pere.12235

Ain’t misbehavin? Monogamy maintenance strategies in heterosexual romantic relationships

2018· article· en· W2800324913 on OpenAlex
Brenda H. Lee, Lucia F. O’Sullivan

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonal Relationships · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDerogationRomancePsychologyRelationship maintenanceAttractionSocial psychologySexual relationshipSexual behaviorSexual attractionDevelopmental psychologySociologyGender studiesHuman sexualityPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monogamy is a near universal expectation in intimate relationships in Western societies and is typically defined as sexual and romantic exclusivity to one partner. This research informs the paradox between monogamy intentions and high rates of infidelity. Monogamy maintenance (MM) strategies used in response to relationship threats posed by attraction to extradyadic others were identified and characterized. Across three samples, 741 U.S. adults in intimate relationships completed surveys addressing MM. Twenty‐four strategies emerged in three factors—Proactive Avoidance (of attractive alternatives), Relationship Enhancement, and Low Self‐Monitoring and Derogation (in the face of extradyadic attraction). All MM factors were commonly endorsed, yet were largely unsuccessful at forestalling infidelity.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.237 · 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