MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081099849 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.51.2.06

Self-Disclosure in Japanese and Korean Couples: A Research Note

2020· article· en· W3081099849 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenji Yokotani, Kyung‐Ran Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWifeGeneralizability theoryReciprocity (cultural anthropology)PsychologySelf-disclosureSocial psychologyEast AsiaInequalityReciprocalPartner effectsGender studiesDevelopmental psychologySociologyPolitical scienceChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reciprocal process model of self-disclosure in marital relationships has been validated in Western couples from societies with relative gender equality. However, the model was not examined in East Asian couples with gender inequality, so this study aimed to examine the cross-cultural generalizability of the model among East Asian couples. Participants were 63 paired heterosexual couples in Korea and 43 paired heterosexual couples in Japan. They answered questionnaires on self-disclosure and perceived partner responsiveness. Results showed that Korean couples did not demonstrate reciprocity of self-disclosure between husband and wife. Japanese couples showed reciprocity of self-disclosure, but the effect size was small. Gender inequality influenced by Confucianism could diminish the reciprocity of self-disclosure in marital relationships. The reciprocal process model needs to include gender inequality as a cultural variable that moderates the reciprocity of self-disclosure between husband and wife.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207