Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relations between adult attachment processes and sexuality were examined in a community sample of 792 young adults (327 men and 465 women) from the Niagara region of Canada. Participants completed questionnaires that included Simpson’s (1990) measure of adult attachment, self‐reported physical attractiveness, erotophilia, and a variety of sexual behavior measures (e.g., number of sexual partners, age of first sexual experience, frequency of sexual behaviors in the past year, whether an affair had occurred in the past year, and consistent condom usage). The sexuality measures were factor analyzed to extract common factors. The results were modest, but a number of significant relationships between sexuality and attachment were observed. For example, people scoring higher on a secure attachment index perceived themselves as more physically attractive, whereas people scoring higher on an anxious attachment index perceived themselves as less physically attractive, had an early first intercourse (and more lifetime partners), more infidelity, and took more sexual precautions (e.g., condom usage). The results were generally stronger in women, with most of the attachment/sexuality associations in the full sample being driven by the results in women. Implications for understanding sexual variability, including high‐risk sexual behavior, 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".