Daily Relationships Experiences Study, 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recruited 122 couples through online (e.g., Reddit, Kijiji, Facebook, Craigslist) and physical (e.g., university campuses, public transportation centers) advertisements in Canada and the United States. Eligible couples were currently living together or seeing each other at least five out of seven days, sexually active, 18 years of age or older, residing in Canada or the United States, able to read and understand English, and had daily access to a computer with internet. Both partners had to agree to participate. One couple was excluded because they only completed the baseline survey of the study. The final sample consists of 121 couples ranging in age from 20 to 78 years (M = 32.63, SD = 10.19). The sample was primarily White/Caucasian (65.3%), straight/heterosexual (81.4%), and married (46.7%), and the average relationship length was 8.50 years (SD = 8.41). Couples were pre-screened for eligibility via e-mail and telephone. Once eligibility and consent were confirmed, each partner completed a 60-minute online background survey, followed by 10- to 15-minute online surveys for 21 consecutive days, and a 20-minute online follow-up survey three months later. Participants were asked to complete the surveys before bed each night and to begin the study on the same day as their partner. Each partner was compensated up to $60 CAD ($48 USD). The ethics board approval number is: e2017 - 324
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.007 |
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".