The Sexual Consent Scale–Revised: Development, Reliability, and Preliminary Validity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sexual Consent Scale–Revised (SCS–R) measures an individual's beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors with respect to how sexual consent should be and is negotiated between sexual partners. This study extends previous research on sexual consent by revising a scale using the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991 Ajzen , I. ( 1991 ). The Theory of Planned Behavior . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 50 , 179 – 211 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2001 Ajzen , I. ( 2001 ). Attitudes . Annual Review of Psychology , 52 , 27 – 58 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2005 Ajzen , I. ( 2005 ) . Attitudes, personality, and behavior ( , 2nd ed. ). Milton-Keynes , England : Open University Press/McGraw-Hill . [Google Scholar]) as its theoretical foundation. The psychometric properties of the SCS–R were established using factor analysis, construct validity tests, as well as internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Five factors emerged: perceived behavioral control, positive attitude toward establishing consent, sexual consent norms, indirect consent behaviors, and awareness of consent. Results indicated that the SCS–R can be useful for examining a variety of research questions relating to sexual consent.
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.
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 | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it