The Role of Intimacy, Loneliness, and Alexithymia in Marital Satisfaction Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Identification of psychological factors that are involved in couples’ dissatisfaction, is of great importance. This research was performed to investigate the role of intimacy, feeling of loneliness, and alexithymia in the prediction of marital satisfaction. Methods: This study was performed as a descriptive-correlational study on all students of Science and Research Branch of Qazvin Islamic Azad University, 2013-2014. A total of 375 students (187 males and 188 females), were selected using available sampling method. Research tools included Enrich Marriage Questionnaire, Walker and Thompson Intimacy Questionnaire, Dehshiri et al. Loneliness Questionnaire, and Toronto Alexithymia Questionnaire. Data were analyzed by Pearson correlation coefficient and stepwise regression tests. Results: In this study, there was a significant positive relationship between intimacy and marital satisfaction. There was significant negative relationship between loneliness, loneliness caused by family, and emotional loneliness with marital satisfaction. Also, there was a significant negative relationship between alexithymia and its components and marital satisfaction. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, intimacy, feeling of loneliness, and alexithymia play a role in marital satisfaction prediction. According to the results of stepwise regression, it was revealed that intimacy, loneliness, and alexithymia, respectively have the most contribution in marital satisfaction in and explain 52% of the variance of marital satisfaction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".