Developmental changes in best friendship quality during emerging adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine change in four features of best friendship quality (intimacy, companionship, reliable alliance and conflict) from age 19 to 30 by gender and investment in romantic life. To this end, 363 participants (58% women) were asked about the quality of the relationship with their best friend and their level of investment in romantic life at ages 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 30. Latent growth curve analysis revealed a slight increase in reliable alliance and companionship and a slight decrease in intimacy in the early 20s followed by a steeper drop for these three features (quadratic trajectories), while conflict declined linearly. Women reported higher levels of intimacy and companionship and less conflict than men did at 19 years old. Also, their intimacy diminished throughout their 20s, slightly at first but more strongly thereafter. For men, it was lower early on and remained stable afterwards. Finally, investment in romantic life at age 19 was associated with change in intimacy levels shared with their best friend. This study confirms that features of best friendship quality change differently from one another during emerging adulthood and demonstrates the influence of gender and investment in romantic life on these changes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".