Maintaining long-distance relationships: comparison to geographically close 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
As more and more people are in long-distance relationships (LDRs), a growing body of literature has emerged investigating how these individuals maintain their relationships in the face of geographical separation. We extended this literature by comparing North American individuals in LDRs (n = 232) and in geographically close relationships (n = 236) in terms of eight relationship maintenance behaviors and nine sexual maintenance behaviors (all positive behaviors). A multivariate analysis of variance showed that individuals in LDRs reported more frequent behaviors to maintain a connection while separated, online sexual activity together, and sexual activity when together as well as less frequent sexual fantasizing about non-partners. Although we found gender differences in the maintenance behaviors consistent with traditional gender roles, these differences were not moderated by relationship type. These results suggest that an increase in introspective behaviors may be important to maintaining LDRs both romantically and sexually, but that sexual frequency is also important for maintaining LDRs and may not be easily replaced by online sexual activities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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