Casual sexual relationships: Identifying definitions for one night stands, booty calls, fuck buddies, and friends with benefits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Operational definitions of casual sexual relationships (CSRs; i.e., Friends with Benefits, Booty Call) have not been validated in previous research. In this exploratory study of terminology used to describe various CSRs, participants were provided with definitions for One Night Stand, Booty Call, Fuck Buddy, and Friends with Benefits relationships and asked to identify the corresponding label for each definition. Overall, a majority (i.e., ≥81%) of men (n=341) and women (n=544) accurately identified the corresponding labels. Specifically, a higher proportion of participants with sexual intercourse experience identified the corresponding definition labels, whereas there was no difference in the proportion of those with or without previous casual sex experience. Furthermore, a higher proportion of female participants identified the corresponding labels, possibly reflecting a greater capacity to identify subtle relationship cues conveyed within the definitions. Given the prevalence of CSRs in the current cultural context, it is vital for researchers to ensure that the terminology they use accurately reflects their participants' understanding of the concepts under investigation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it