MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1962534404 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.499523

The Gift of Agency: Sexual Exchange Scripts among Nigerian Youth

2010· article· en· W1962534404 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Penwell Barnett, Eleanor Maticka‐Tyndale

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Thematic analysisPsychologySocial exchange theorySociologySocial psychologyGender studiesQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the practice of directly exchanging goods for sexual intercourse using data from 36 focus-group discussions with youth living in rural southern Nigeria. Conceptualizing this practice as a sexual script, the authors conduct a deductive thematic analysis framed by the broader context in which sexual exchange occurs. Combining scripting theory with an analysis of the form of the payment, it was found that the cultural script of exchange supports girls' agency. However, at the interpersonal level of practice, this script often loses out in conflict with the cultural scripting of male control. The shape of this practice is influenced by intrapsychic scripts (e.g., sexual violence is an option), interpersonal resources (e.g., family money), and cultural scripts (e.g., stuff and status bring friends). In the final analysis, sexual exchange is found to be a script that both enables and restricts agency. It is a power niche for those with limited social and economic power, enabling them to seek and access material goods, social status, and sexual experience. It is also a means of coercing unwanted sex via peer and parental pressure, poverty, and a context of gender inequality. Implications for HIV prevention are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207