MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996229940 · doi:10.1080/00224490802398399

Role of Sexual Self-Disclosure in the Sexual Satisfaction of Long-Term Heterosexual Couples

2009· article· en· W1996229940 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila MacNeil, E. Sandra Byers

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-disclosurePsychologySexual attractionSexual functioningDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychologySexual behaviorSexual dysfunctionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined two proposed pathways between sexual self-disclosure (SSD) and sexual satisfaction in a sample of 104 heterosexual couples in long-term relationships. According to the proposed instrumental pathway, disclosure of sexual preferences increases a partner's understanding of those preferences resulting in a sexual script that is more rewarding and less costly. A more favorable balance of sexual rewards to sexual costs, in turn, results in greater sexual satisfaction for the disclosing individual. According to the proposed expressive pathway, mutual self-disclosure contributes to relationship satisfaction, which in turn leads to greater sexual satisfaction. Support was found for the instrumental pathway for both men and women. Support also was found for an expressive pathway between own SSD and partner nonsexual self-disclosure (NSD) and men's sexual satisfaction, and between own NSD and women's sexual satisfaction. These results are interpreted in terms of mechanisms for establishing and maintaining sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships in men and women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations259
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207