Influence of Spousal Communication on Marital Conflict Resolution as Expressed by Married Adults in Ilorin Metropolis, Kwara State: Implications for Counselling Practice
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
This study investigated the influence of spousal communication on marital conflict resolution as expressed by married adults in the Ilorin metropolis. The research design adopted for the study was a descriptive design. A stratified sampling technique was employed to select 210 respondents. The main instrument used for the study was a researcher-designed questionnaire entitled “Influence of Spousal Communication on Marital Conflict Resolution Questionnaire (ISCMCRQ)”. The instrument was validated by experts in counseling and also yielded a reliability co-efficient of 0.88 after a test re-test reliability method. One research question was raised and three hypotheses were postulated and tested. An analysis of Variance and t-test were employed to test the null hypotheses at 0.05 alpha level. Findings revealed that communication in marriage has a positive influence on marital conflict resolution. Findings also revealed that communication helps to resolve marital conflict if there is effective communication among couples and enhanced respect for each other. Ineffective communication between spouses leads to perceptive error. There were no significant differences in the influence of spousal communication style on marital conflict resolution as expressed by married adults in the Ilorin metropolis based on gender, age and educational qualification. It was therefore recommended that married adults should be encouraged to pay attention to the non-verbal communication aspects of their relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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