Les textos entre partenaires amoureux: un outil qui contribue à un meilleur déroulement des interactions en face-à-face ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Devant la disponibilité de multiples nouveaux canaux de communication, les partenaires amoureux valorisent particulièrement l’utilisation de la messagerie texte (ou textos) entre eux (Coyne et al., 2011; Pettigrew, 2009). L'usage des textos dans le cadre de relations amoureuses pose un problème intéressant eu égard aux comportements et aux attentes qui caractérisent ce type de relation. En effet, si le développement et le maintien des relations amoureuses reposent sur les interactions intimes (Andersen et al. 2006, p. 260) et la communication non-verbale qui les constituent (ibid; Frisby & Booth-Butterfield 2012, pp. 468-469), on peut se demander de quelle façon les textos – un moyen de communication a priori plus limité que la communication en face-à-face ou même le téléphone pour la transmission de signaux non verbaux – affectent les relations amoureuses. Le présent article cherche à faire la lumière sur la question à partir d'entretiens réalisés auprès de douze (12) jeunes couples amoureux. Les résultats suggèrent notamment que ces derniers utilisent les textos afin de préparer et minimiser l'incertitude qui peut caractériser leurs rencontres en face-àface.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".