MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3033234502 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13712

Shifts in Past Self Perceptions to Preserve Well-Being After a Romantic Breakup

2019· dissertation· en· W3033234502 on OpenAlexaff
Adrienne A. Paynter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakupRomancePerceptionDistressPsychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I examined negative shifts in past self perceptions after a romantic breakup (i.e., toward thinking one's pre-breakup self was not as happy and not as positive of a version of themself as they thought at the time) as a means of preserving post-breakup well-being.I recruited 184 people who were in romantic relationships to complete satisfaction and self-related measures twice, four months apart (retrospectively at Time 2).Those who experienced a breakup between ratings indicated larger negative shifts in past self perceptions than those whose relationships remained intact and larger shifts were associated with greater post-breakup well-being.Secondary analyses suggested that these shifts may improve well-being in part by helping one disentangle their expartner from their self-concept.The results were inconclusive (due to methodological limitations) regarding whether they also do so by ameliorating emotional distress.Implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed. Shifts in past self perceptions after breakupPaynter, A. A.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics→French-language works237,207→