MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415856584 · doi:10.31031/pprs.2025.09.000708

Love and Culture, and How they Affect Each Other: A Commentary

2025· article· W4415856584 on OpenAlexaff
Ami Rokach

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Psychotherapy Research Study · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Perspective (graphical)PerceptionAction (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Love, while a universal phenomenon, is significantly influenced by culture, race and ethnicity.This commentary highlights that connection.While love is now seen as universal, Americans have commonly be concerned and occupied with love.At the beginning of the 21 st century, anthropologists, clinical psychologists, communication studies, developmental psychologists, evolutionary psychologists, social psychologists, and sociologists, among others, are exploring the nature of love.People are social animals, and as such they need and want to belong and be part of a caring community.In their plight top respond to that need, humans aim to be part of intimate relationships.Apparently, those who are involved in close intimate relationships, live happier, longer, healthier, and more fulfilling lives [1].

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.167
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and Psychotherapy Research StudySame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207