Exploring the Role of Family Resilience in Predicting Marital Functioning: A Cross-Sectional Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the predictive relationship between family resilience and family functioning among married couples. It sought to understand how the construct of resilience within the family context influences the overall dynamics and health of marital relationships. Methods and Materials: Adopting a cross-sectional design, the study recruited 250 married individuals from counseling centers and social network groups. Participants were assessed using standardized measures of family resilience and family functioning. Linear regression analysis was employed to explore the predictive power of family resilience on family functioning, with preliminary checks for multicollinearity, normality, and homoscedasticity. Findings: The analysis revealed a significant predictive relationship between family resilience and family functioning. Specifically, higher levels of reported family resilience were associated with better family functioning scores. These findings were supported by statistical analyses, demonstrating that family resilience accounted for a substantial portion of the variance in family functioning. Conclusion: The study confirms the importance of family resilience as a significant predictor of family functioning in married couples. This underscores the potential for interventions aimed at enhancing family resilience to positively impact marital health and well-being. The findings advocate for the integration of resilience-building strategies in family therapy and counseling practices.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it