Partner Regulation and Gratitude - Cross-Sectional, 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 486 participants (58.8% women, 40.5% men, 0.6% non-binary) in a romantic relationship were recruited from the online Prolific Academic platform. To be eligible for the study, participants were required to be at least 18 years old and to have been involved in their romantic relationship for at least one year. The average relationship length was 8.69 years (SD = 8.27) and the majority of participants (75.5%) were in committed and unmarried relationships, 23.2% married, and 1.4% did not report their relationship type. Participants’ average age was 32.16 years (SD = 10.15, range = 18-75), and they identified as 85.0% heterosexual, 9.3% bisexual, 1.6% gay, 1.6% pansexual, 1% lesbian, 0.4% asexual, 0.2% other, (0.8% preferred not to say), and as 75.7% White, 8.8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 7.2% Hispanic or Latinx, 2.5% Black or African American, 0.6% Indigenous, and 5.1% as another racial/ethnic identity. Participants completed measures about a change their romantic partner asked them to make, including their motivations for making efforts toward these changes, attributions for the change request, how their partner requests change, and the gratitude they receive from their partner for their efforts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.010 |
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".