MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925180411 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/fr5yn

Relationship satisfaction as a moderator of stress and physical health outcomes during the transition to parenthood

2022· other· en· W6925180411 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Politics, and Modernism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModerationStressorAssociation (psychology)FeelingAffect (linguistics)Interpersonal relationshipPartner effectsStress (linguistics)Physical health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition to parenthood is marked by an increase in stress for both parents as it is one of the most dramatic and intense transitions in the family life cycle (Martins, 2019). The changes in roles and relationships of these individuals, and the stressors that it brings, can affect the quality of both individuals’ health as they become parents (Martins, 2019). It has been noted that close relationships affect immune function, inflammation, and other health outcomes (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2010). This could be explained by social baseline theory, which states that social relationships confer energy-saving benefits due to the decreased risks and increased regulatory efforts of being in an interpersonal relationship (Beckes & Coan, 2011). Therefore, perhaps the quality of the intimate relationship during the transition to parenthood might moderate the demonstrated association between stress levels and physical health outcomes. Thus, I hypothesize that the quality of the relationship between romantic partners during the transition to parenthood might moderate the association between perceived stress levels and physical health outcomes. Since relationship satisfaction might serve as a buffer moderating the association between perceived stress and physical health outcomes, an exploratory analysis was also conducted to see what might be associated with relationship satisfaction. Literature has found that relationship satisfaction is affected by emotional flooding, which is the subjective experience of being overwhelmed by a partner's negative affect, finding it to be unexpected and intense, and feeling as though one's information processing is impaired (Gottman, 1993). Increased emotional flooding experienced by one partner has led to less satisfaction within the romantic relationship (Walker et al., 2009). However, the literature has mixed findings on the mean levels of flooding in certain interpersonal relationships. For example, Foran et al. (2020) reported that men reported slightly higher mean levels of flooding than women, which may be due to men having somewhat greater reactivity to anger displays of their partners or gender differences in learned reactions to conflict. Del Vecchio et al. (2016) found that in caregiver-child interactions, mothers' flooding was significantly higher than fathers' flooding. Therefore, I wanted to test if there were gender differences in reported flooding levels in the data set analyzed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicArt, Politics, and ModernismFrench-language works237,207