MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099452238 · doi:10.1111/pere.12354

Worn out relationship? The role of expectations in judgments of relational boredom

2020· article· en· W3099452238 on OpenAlexafffund
Cheryl Harasymchuk, Johanna Peetz, Beverley Fehr, Shamarukh Chowdhury

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonal Relationships · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBoredomPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examined the role of growth and security expectations in shaping people's judgments of relational boredom and conflict (for discriminant validity). In Studies 1 and 2, the type of expectation gaps (growth vs. security) in hypothetical relationships (as well as the occurrence of a gap in Study 2) was manipulated, and people's judgments of relational boredom and conflict were assessed; Study 3 assessed these associations in people's own relationships. Across all studies, people were more likely to diagnose boredom in other people's relationships (Studies 1 and 2) and their own relationship (Study 3) if the expectation gap for growth (vs. security) was greater. People reported more conflict in their own relationship if the expectation gap for security (vs. growth) was greater.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonal RelationshipsSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207