Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study examined positive and negative aspects of relationship quality with one's spouse or partner as predictors of mortality and the role of gender in moderating this link. METHOD: = 1,734). Positive aspects of relationship quality (frequency of opening up to the partner to talk about worries and relying on the partner) and negative aspects (frequency of the partner making too many demands and criticism by the partner) were assessed. Survival/mortality status was recorded at the time of Wave 2 data collection 5 years later (1,567 alive; 167 deceased). Covariates included sociodemographic variables, relationship type, health status, and the network size of close family relationships and friendships. RESULTS: = 1.44, 95% CI [1.10, 1.88]). Gender did not moderate the relationship-quality-mortality link. CONCLUSIONS: Negative relationship quality, notably, criticism received from one's spouse or partner, heightens older adults' risk of mortality. These results suggest the value of developing interventions that target reducing expressed criticism in couple relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".