Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the attachment styles and early maladaptive schemas of monogamous and polygamous men.The subjects were 100 patients (50 monogamous men and 50 polygamous men) which were selected by available sampling method.The subjects responded to attachment styles and early maladaptive schemas questionnaires.Data analysis by using t-test showed that in this study, in terms of review of attachment styles, between secure attachment styles, there was no significant difference among avoidant and ambivalent monogamous and polygamous men.In early maladaptive schema variable, in terms of involvement, dedication, inhibition, unrelenting standards and entitlements there was no significant difference among avoidant and ambivalent monogamous and polygamous men.But the polygamous men experience mistreatment / distrust, social isolation / alienation, defectiveness / shame, failure, dependence / incompetence, vulnerability and loving obedience more than monogamous men.As well as polygamous men in terms of restraint are lower in the hierarchy than monogamous men.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.974 | 0.964 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".