Relocation and Romantic Relationships - Cross-sectional, 2018-2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We obtained a sample of 438 individuals, which includes 70 couples (i.e., 70 participants (16%) are partners of our primary participants). The sample consists of 208 participants who initiated the couples’ relocation to a different city, state/province, or country (i.e., relocaters), and 230 participants who accommodated their partner’s initiation to move (i.e., trailers). Participants were recruited on the online research platform Prolific and filled out a ~45 minutes survey for which they were paid $10CAD (or another currency’s equivalent) and a bonus of $2CAD if their partner participated as well. Participants were eligible when they spoke English, were over the age of 18, were currently in a romantic relationship, currently lived together with their romantic partner, and importantly, when they had relocated with their partner in the past year, which was primarily for one of the partners (e.g., to support their career opportunities). Participants ranged in age from 20 to 69 (M = 32.3, SD = 7.6), 56.4% identified as women, 43.2% as men, and 0.5% as non-binary. The majority identified as heterosexual (89.3%), with others identifying as bisexual (7.5%), lesbian (1.1%), gay (0.9%), or “other” (e.g., queer or asexual; 1.1%). Most participants identified as White (North American/European, 75.1%) and others as bi- or multi-ethnic (e.g., White/Black, 6.2%), Latin American (6.2%), South Asian (4.6%), East Asian (3%), Black (2.1%), Native American/First Nations (0.7%), or “other” (e.g., Middle Eastern, Jewish, 2.3%). All participants were living together with their partner and were in their current relationship for 8.56 (SD = 5.21) years on average. Most participants were married (95.7%), and some were dating (2.3%) or indicated “other” (e.g., engaged or in a registered partnership, 2.1%). Half of the participants had children (50.2%), with most of these having one (24.2%) or two (17.1%) children. This project was approved by the University of Toronto Mississauga research ethics board on July 20, 2018 (#36046).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".