MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006990132 · doi:10.1177/0886260513505143

Attachment Style, Early Sexual Intercourse, and Dating Aggression Victimization

2013· article· en· W2006990132 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Yarkovsky, Patti A. Timmons Fritz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interpersonal Violence · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySexual intercourseAggressionDevelopmental psychologyAnal intercourseAttachment theoryClinical psychologyDemographyMedicinePopulationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined relations between attachment style, age at first sexual intercourse, and dating aggression (DA) victimization. In all, 137 heterosexual female undergraduate students 18 to 25 years of age (M = 20.76, SD = 1.87) completed an online questionnaire that included questions regarding sexual history, attachment style (Experiences in Close Relationships Scale), and DA (Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory). Initial bivariate correlations revealed that women reported higher rates of DA victimization if they were more anxiously attached (r = .30, p = .000), had an earlier age at vaginal sexual debut (r = -.19, p = .015), and had an earlier age at oral sexual debut (r = -.15, p = .046); however, when entered into a predictive multivariate model, neither the addition of anxious attachment nor an early age at sexual debut accounted for a significant amount of variance above and beyond control variables. Although we were unable to affirm anxious attachment and an early age at first intercourse as risk factors for DA victimization, posthoc analyses emphasized the need to control for social desirability when gathering information on sensitive topics in clinical and research settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interpersonal ViolenceSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207