Bibliographic record
Abstract
CARYL RUSBULT In the summer of 2008 at the International Association for Relationship Research (IARR) conference in Providence, Rhode Island, I sat down to meet for the first time members of the new editorial team of Personal Relationships (PR). An item on our agenda was to decide whom we should ask to write the distinguished scholar article for our first issue (March 2010). We agreed very quickly that Caryl Rusbult, the winner of the 2008 Distinguished Career Award, was the ideal candidate. Caryl's contributions to our field are well known and have few rivals, and as the new editor of PR I was very excited at the possibility that Caryl would write an article that both summarized her life's work to date and suggested avenues for future research. Caryl quickly agreed to write the article and was genuinely happy to be asked to do so. A few weeks before the deadline for our first issue I received an e-mail from Caryl. Her first sentence stated that she was sorry for not having a draft of her manuscript to me, but she described recent medical problems that had prevented her from working on any of her many projects. Caryl ended her e-mail with these words: “I AM feeling a bit better now, but this is not to say that I'm operating at the top level that I want and need to finish up this paper in the grand style that I ideally envision. What shall we do? Shall we leave this open for the next week or so, or shall we aim for the June issue? I'm so sorry for this!” I told Caryl that time was not a problem on my end, that whenever she could submit her manuscript that would be fine with me. Time, of course, was limited for Caryl, and I was very sad to hear of her passing at the end of January 2010. After receiving Caryl's e-mail, and hearing of her passing, I thought a great deal about something that Caryl said in her e-mail: the “grand style” that she ideally envisioned for her finished product. I then wondered if there was a way to put together a tribute to Caryl, as a person and researcher, in the pages of PR that would illustrate, in grand style, the importance of her work to the field. I spoke with a few people including Jeff Simpson, Harry Reis, and Paul Van Lange about how to properly pay respect to Caryl as our distinguished scholar, and the idea to have many of her colleagues discuss how Caryl's research and thinking had influenced their own career development was hatched. What follows is a series of tributes, in alphabetical order, from researchers at different stages in their careers discussing the importance of Caryl's influence on their own research. Taken together, these pieces illuminate exactly the type of distinguished scholar Caryl was during her career and confirm that Caryl's ideas will continue to influence our field in her absence. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this tribute on such short notice, and I hope readers appreciate the quality of the scholar that we have collectively lost as a field.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".