A cluster analysis of dynamics in adolescent romantic relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While several studies involving adolescents have addressed issues related to romantic relationships and dating violence, there is a limited understanding of adolescent romantic relationship dynamics. Typological analyses have been useful to provide targeted interventions and to simplify our understanding of complex phenomena. METHODS: = 18.44 years, SD = 1.47) completed a self-reported questionnaire. A hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted based on the dimensions of the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems (i.e., cohesion, flexibility, and communication; Olson & Gorall, 2003). RESULTS: Analysis revealed four profiles of romantic relationship dynamics: 1) balanced dynamic (51.0% of the sample); 2) hampered dynamic (8.3%); 3) entangled dynamic (20.8%); and 4) rigid dynamic (13.5%). Taking into account the variations between and within dyads, results highlight the diversity of romantic experiences and offer a better understanding of the intricacies of different adolescent romantic relationship dynamics. Correlates indicated that the profiles can be distinguished by different personal and interpersonal characteristics. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the importance of integrating a more person- and dyad-oriented framework in our understanding of adolescent romantic dynamics, since a unique approach to prevention and intervention may not address the needs of all adolescents. The results provided important insight into the identified profiles, guiding dating violence prevention efforts and programs and promoting harmonious and egalitarian romantic 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".