Exploring qualities present in current versus dissolved cross-group friendships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In general, cross-group friendships are less stable than same-group friendships. What conditions are present in currently existing versus dissolved cross-group friendships? In order to examine qualities that may influence cross-group friendship stability we compared current and dissolved friendships, including cross-group friendships. Cross-group friendships exist in various group domains, some more easily categorizable than others. That is, sometimes it is easy to tell that a relationship is cross-group (e.g., cross-race), and other times this is less clear (e.g., cross-socio-economic status). Thus, we compared current and dissolved friendships across both a more and a less easily categorizable group domain. In this study, participants reported on their current and dissolved friendships, and we found that, overall, friendship influencing qualities such as closeness, similarity, and social network integration (i.e., becoming friends with the friends of one’s own friends) were present to a greater extent in current versus dissolved friendships. This was the case for both cross-group and same-group friendships. These qualities may influence cross-group friendship stability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".