Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset was collected at the University of Toronto between 2015-2017. Romantic couples from the community participated in a four-part study. To be eligible, couples were required to be in a relationship for at least 3 years. A total of 111 couples completed the study. The four parts of the study included (1) completing a background questionnaire; (2) participating in a lab session in which they were connected to physiological equipment and held three conversations, alternating as speakers and listeners, on the topics of (a) a time when they felt distressed, (b) something they would like their partner to change and (c) something about their partner they feel grateful for; and completed questionnaires about these conversations; (3) completing a 14-day daily experience (“diary”) study; and (4) completing a follow-up questionnaire the day after the diary. In addition, a subset of these participants was rated by their work supervisors. Data have been collected for this study in full. The protocol reference number for ethics approval of this study is 31063.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.721 |
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; both teacher heads 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".