MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022058883 · doi:10.3138/cjhs.933

Sexual resourcefulness and gender roles as moderators of relationship satisfaction and consenting to unwanted sex in undergraduate women

2013· article· en· W2022058883 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Deborah J. Kennett, Terry P. Humphreys, Janette E. Bramley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologySexual relationshipSexual attractionCompliance (psychology)Sexual behaviorDevelopmental psychologyHuman sexualitySocial psychologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated the relationship between gender norms and relationship satisfaction on sexual self-control. A sample of 246 heterosexual female undergraduates who had been in an intimate relationship recently or at the time of this study completed measures of general and sexual resourcefulness, sexual self-efficacy, reasons for consenting to unwanted sexual advances, endorsement of traditional gender norms, relationship satisfaction, and frequency of consenting to unwanted sexual activities. Higher general resourcefulness and sexual self-efficacy scores and fewer reasons for consenting to unwanted sexual advances were direct predictors of higher sexual resourcefulness scores. Women who were more sexually resourceful, had fewer reasons for consenting to unwanted sexual activity, and were happier in their relationship were more likely to report a lower frequency of sexual compliance. Endorsement of traditional gender norms and sexual resourcefulness, however, moderated the relationship between sexual compliance and relationship satisfaction. Less sexually resourceful women who strongly endorsed traditional gender roles were far more likely to consent to unwanted sexual activities, when relationship satisfaction was low, in comparison to all the other groups. Implications, limitations and possible directions for future research 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 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)0.001
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Human SexualitySame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207