Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recruited 122 mixed-sex couples from Canada via online ads posted in five major Canadian cities (Reddit, Kijiji) and through advertisements posted in public locations in a major Canadian city. Couples were eligible to participate if they were in an exclusive, monogamous relationship for at least 2 years and were living together (couples were pre-screened for eligibility via email and telephone). <br> <br> Couple members each completed a background survey (approximately 55 minutes in length). Then, each couple member started the 21-day diary study on the same day. Each couple member completed 21 daily diaries in total. On average, participants completed 19.56 out of 21 days. We followed-up with each couple member 3-months later. <br> <br> Measures: <br> <br> At background, we assessed demographics, individual differences (e.g., attachment styles, Big Five, approach and avoidance relationship goals, self-esteem) and relationship and sexual experiences (e.g., closeness, commitment, satisfaction, social threats and rewards, self-expansion, conflict, boredom, sexual desire and satisfaction, compassionate love). <br> <br> At the daily level, we assessed relationship and sexual experiences (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, boredom, conflict, types of love, sexual desire and satisfaction). <br> <br> At the 3-month follow-up, we assessed relationship quality (e.g., satisfaction, thoughts of separation, boredom, self-expansion).
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.018 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".