Dyadic Gratitude and Partner Regulation Weekly Diary, 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset was collected between March 2020 and August 2021. We recruited 150 romantic couples (300 people) from the community for a longitudinal, three-part study. Participants were recruited through online advertisements (e.g., on Kijiji, Reddit). To be eligible for the study, participants were required to be at least 18 years old, living together in Canada or the U.S., and to have been in a relationship for at least one year. Participants’ age ranged from 18-57 (M=28 years, SD=6 years) and they had been in the relationship for between 1 and 23 years (M=5 years, SD=5 years). Approximately two thirds of the couples resided in Canada and one third resided in the United States. The sample is roughly half women and half men, included a diverse range of racial/ethnic identities (roughly one third White, one third Asian and one third additional identities including bi-/multi-ethnic, African, and Middle Eastern), and is 78% heterosexual. Prior to beginning the study, participants completed a screening questionnaire to assess eligibility and research assistants spoke to each participant on the phone to verify that they were a couple. The three parts of the study included (1) completing a background questionnaire; (2) participating in an eight-week weekly experience (“diary”) study that involved completing a survey once a week for eight weeks; and (3) completing a follow-up questionnaire six months after the last weekly diary and roughly nine months after the background survey. Participants completed 7/8 weekly surveys on average, and follow-up retention was 82%. At background, we assessed demographics, individual differences (e.g., Big Five, attachment styles, satisfaction with life), relationship and sexual experiences (e.g., relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction), and identified partner-requested changes that we tracked over the study (weekly and at follow-up). Each week, we assessed individual (e.g., emotions, motivation) and relational (e.g., conflict, satisfaction, communication) experiences. At follow-up, we assessed individual and relationship well-being (e.g., relationship and sexual satisfaction). This study was approved by the University of Toronto ethics board (protocol #37757).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".