MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047662660 · doi:10.1177/2167696814548060

Young Women’s Satisfaction With Sex and Romance, and Emotional Reactions to Sex

2014· article· en· W2047662660 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie J. Zimmer‐Gembeck, Laurenne See, Lucia F. O’Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Adulthood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySituational ethicsFeelingRomanceCondomDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyStructural equation modelingSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study of 364 young women (18–25 years old), self-efficacy theory and social interactionist perspectives were drawn upon to identify personal and situational factors that could account for sexual and romantic satisfaction and positive and negative emotional reactions to sex. As expected, young women were more satisfied and reported more positive emotional reactions and fewer negative reactions to their most recent sexual encounters, when they had elevated psychological sexual health, such as feeling more entitled to desire and reporting greater sexual self-efficacy. Also supporting study hypotheses, multivariate modeling results showed that young women who reported current steady partners and fewer negative influences of alcohol/other drug use on their sexual behavior were more satisfied and had more positive emotional reactions to sex. Condom use and the number of sexual partners were not uniquely associated with satisfaction or emotional reactions to sex in these models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging AdulthoodSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207