Intertwined Friendships: How Older Women Navigated Couple Friendships and Individual Friendships Alongside Romantic Partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how older women’s friendships were intertwined with their opposite-sex romantic partners, and their friendships, via interviews using a constructivist, grounded theory approach. Participants ( N = 19) were women from the Northeastern United States, had at least some college, and all were non-Hispanic White. Theoretical coding led to two main themes: Friendship Level: Couple Versus Individual and Conflicts and Differences: Gendered Dynamics. Within Friendship Level , couple activities such as vacations and dinners were mentioned as key activities, along with the women’s role in crafting couples’ friendships. Reasons why friendships remained separate were also discussed. For Conflicts and Differences, women talked about how they had more friends than their romantic partners and that their romantic partners’ friendships were largely work-based. Women also discussed instances in which a romantic partner misbehaved. These findings have implications for how romantic partners navigate friendships together.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".