MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211556153 · doi:10.52547/jps.20.104.1313

Emotional charactristics of personality, cognitive problems, emotional regulation strategies and marital adjustment: a comparative study in women with high and low fear of infidility

2021· article· en· W3211556153 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saeid Purnaghash Tehrani, Somayeh Ghasemi Morodi, MohamadReza Rezazadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal Of Psychological Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Dynamics and Relationships
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionPersonalityEmotional regulationCognitive reappraisalClinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Despite the complexities and high prevalence of marital infidelity and its detrimental consequences in addition to its emotional load in marital relationships, particularly in women, not much research has been conducted because the taboo nature of this issue. Aims: As such, the purpose of this study was to compare the emotional characteristics of personality, cognitive problems, emotional regulation strategies and marital adjustment in women with high fear and low fear of marital infidelity. Methods: The present research is a causal comparative research. The sample consists of 89 women from the city of Karaj who referred to counseling centers for marital problems and met the entry and exit criteria and agreed to participate in the study and were selected by available method. The research instrument consisted of the Montreal Cognitive Function Questionnaire, the Emotional Characteristics of Cloninger Personality Questionnaire, the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), the Marital Adjustment Scale (DAS), and a single question assessing fear of infidelity based on a 9-degree likert type. Data were analyzed by SPSS 23 software and factor analysis using independent t-test and non-parametric Mann-Whitney test.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal Of Psychological ScienceSame topicFamily Dynamics and RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207