Can less be more? Comparing duration vs. frequency of sexual encounters in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A commonly measured indicator of a romantic couple's sexual well-being and satisfaction has been the frequency with which they engage in sexual activity, or more specifically, sexual intercourse. Although some have acknowledged that frequency of sexual intercourse is not an appropriate measure for all types of romantic relationships (e.g. same-sex couples), the measurement of sexual frequency, of one type or another, has remained fairly constant throughout sex and relationships research. While precise estimates of sexual frequency among different types of couples (male/female same-sex vs. mixed-sex) have varied, the general pattern of findings has often indicated that female same-sex couples report lower sexual frequencies than other couples. The current study sought to examine an alternate dimension of sexuality by asking individuals in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships to report the length of their last sexual encounter as well as the length of their average sexual encounter. A sample of 822 participants reported both length of sexual encounters and frequency of sexual activity. While the sexual frequency data replicated past findings, with female same-sex couples reporting the lowest sexual frequencies, sexual duration data painted a very different picture, with female same-sex couples reporting significantly longer durations spent on individual sexual encounters than men and women in mixed-sex or male same-sex relationships. Consequently, it is argued that to better understand the nature of a specific couple's sexual relationship, it is important to examine not just sexual frequency, but also the amount of time spent on individual sexual encounters.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".