A two-study validation of a single-item measure of relationship satisfaction: RAS-1
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
Abstract Research addressing relationship satisfaction is a constantly growing area in the social sciences. The aim of the present investigation was to examine the similarities and differences between the seven-item Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) and the single-item measure of relationship satisfaction (RAS-1), using proximal and distal constructs as correlates. Two studies using two independent samples were conducted, assessing more proximal constructs, such as love and sex mindset in Study 1 ( N = 380; female = 195) and more distant ones, such as loneliness and problematic pornography use in Study 2 ( N = 703; female = 360). Structural equation modeling revealed that love ( β RAS-1 = .55; p < .01; β RAS = .71; p < .01), sex mindset beliefs ( β RAS-1 = .18; p < .01; β RAS = .13; p < .01) and loneliness ( β RAS-1 = −.35; p < .01; β RAS = −.37; p < .01) had significant positive and negative associations with RAS and RAS-1, respectively; while problematic pornography use did not. These results suggest that RAS-1 may be an equally adequate instrument for measuring relationship satisfaction as the RAS with respect to proximal and distal correlates. Thus, RAS-1 is recommended to be used in large-scale studies when the number of items is limited.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it