Examining the Dimensions of Intimacy in Twin and Peer Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While it is widely assumed that twinship involves high levels of intimacy to the detriment of other relationships, an examination of twinship using measures of intimacy has not yet been conducted. Participants were 214 individual twins (128 MZ, 62 DZ same-sex, and 24 DZ mixed-sex) between 16–73 years of age. Twins completed measures of intimacy in reference to their co-twin, their closest same-sex friend, and their closest other-sex friend. As expected, the highest level of intimacy was reported for the co-twin. Contrary to expectation, MZ twins did not report significantly higher levels of intimacy with their co-twin, or significantly lower levels of intimacy with their closest friends when compared to DZ same-sex or DZ mixed-sex twins. Furthermore, twins who reported high levels of intimacy with their co-twin did not report significantly lower levels of intimacy with their closest friends. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".