Relationship Catastrophizing in the Transition to Parenthood: Associations with Sexual Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dyadic investigation examines how couples’ relationship catastrophizing (i.e., magnifying negative cognitions, ruminating on relationship problems, and/or adopting a helpless orientation toward coping with relationship challenges) is associated with their own and their partner’s sexual well-being during the transition to parenthood. Sex and gender diverse couples from the community and online sources, across Canada and the United States, were recruited to participate in a study involving completing: 1) a baseline survey at 20 weeks pregnant; 2) brief daily surveys for 21 days (completed between 3- and 4-months postpartum), and 3) five follow-up surveys (i.e., at 32 weeks pregnant, 2 weeks postpartum, 3 months postpartum, 9 months postpartum, and 15 months postpartum). At the time of preregistration (June 2022), data collection is ongoing for the longitudinal follow-up surveys and daily surveys. For the current investigation, we will be focusing on data from the 21-day daily surveys only. In addition to couples recruited as part of the larger study, a subsample of participants (N = 65 couples) were recruited at 3 months postpartum specifically for the daily diary component of the study. The same inclusion and exclusion criteria were used for both studies, with the exception of pregnancy-related criteria (no longer relevant for the postpartum-only daily diary sample).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".