The Impact of Outside Friendships on Relational Satisfaction for Dating and Married Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of outside friendship on Couples’ relational satisfaction (RS) was explored with a sample of 444 romantically involved participants from central Alberta. There were, therefore, 222 couples, 89 of the couples were dating or engaged; 133 of the couples were Married or cohabitating. All couples were heterosexual. The primary focus of the study was to identify the relationship between the number and quality of outside friendships and relational satisfaction of the couples. Friendships were divided into three types: unshared (individual) friends, family friends, and shared (mutual) friends. A combination of the George-Wisdom Marital Satisfaction Scale and the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale measured relational satisfaction. Results underlined the importance of friendship-related variables on couples’ relational satisfaction; they accounted for 37% of the variance (in relational satisfaction) for men and 47.5% for women. Additional results found that individual friendships are a serious liability to couple satisfaction, family and mutual friends are associated with greater couple satisfaction. Finally, in regression analyses the families supporting the relationship and liking the partner were the greatest predictors of relational satisfaction.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".