The impact of daily sexual desire and daily sexual desire discrepancy on the quality of the sexual experience in couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has found associations between sexual desire, desire discrepancy, and satisfaction outcomes in individuals and couples on a broad level. The present study aimed to extend these findings to the event level through examining daily experiences of sexual desire, sexual desire discrepancy, and quality of the sexual experience in a sample of 87 mixed-sex couples (174 individuals) over a 30-day period through daily electronic report. Participants were in their relationships for an average of 9.3 years. Data were analyzed using over-time Actor Partner Interdependence Models (APIM). For women and men, higher actor daily sexual desire predicted higher actor quality of the sexual experience. In addition, higher partner daily sexual desire predicted higher actor quality of the sexual experience. Event-level desire discrepancy between the couple was also a significant predictor of actor quality of the sexual experience for women, though not for men. These results confirm that day-to-day sexual desire and desire discrepancy are important indicators of quality of the sexual relationship and emphasize the importance of considering event-level characteristics when examining sexual behaviour and couple dynamics. Implications and suggestions for future research are also 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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".