Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has begun to examine the subjective meanings of virginity and first coitus, but little is known about how these understandings influence the first sexual intercourse event. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between virginity scripts and the approach taken and decisions made during first coitus. A quantitative measure of virginity interpretations (as gift, stigma, or process) was developed based on Carpenter's (2001 Carpenter , L. M. ( 2001 ). The ambiguity of “having sex”: The subjective experience of virginity loss in the United States . The Journal of Sex Research , 38 , 127 – 139 . doi: 10.1080/00224490109552080 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2005 Carpenter , L. M. ( 2005 ). Virginity lost: An intimate portrait of first sexual experiences . New York , NY : New York University Press . [Google Scholar]) qualitative interviews. Participants were university students (184 women and 31 men), all of whom had experienced consensual first penile–vaginal intercourse. Participants completed a quantitative questionnaire in the lab. Fifty-four percent of participants classified themselves as process oriented, 37.7% as gift oriented, and 8.4% as stigma oriented at the time of first coitus. The virginity scripts or frameworks were found to be related to age at first coitus, partner choice, length of relationship with first partner, planning, affective reaction to first coitus, and perceived impact on life. Virginity frameworks were unrelated to contraceptive use at first coitus. Results from this study suggest that Carpenter's virginity frameworks can be successfully translated into quantitative measures that support links between how individuals interpret their virginity and the decisions they make at first coitus.
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 | 0.014 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".