Does the sexual self-control model for women apply to undergraduate men?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to determine whether the variables of the Sexual Self-control Model that predict sexual resourcefulness and consenting to unwanted sexual advances in undergraduate women also apply to undergraduate men. A sample of 124 males completed the Self-Control Schedule that assesses general learned resourcefulness and also the Sexual Resourcefulness Inventory, Sexual Self-Efficacy Scale, Reasons for Consenting to Unwanted Sexual Advances Scale, and Sexual Giving-in Experiences Survey. As hypothesized and paralleling the results for women, higher levels of general learned resourcefulness and sexual self-efficacy, and fewer reasons for consenting to unwanted sexual advances predicted higher levels of sexual resourcefulness in men. Contrary to the previous findings in women, lower sexual resourcefulness was not a unique predictor of consenting to unwanted advances in men. Instead, a mediation model was supported, whereby males having more reasons for consenting to an unwanted sexual activity were more likely to comply despite having higher levels of sexual resourcefulness skills. In addition, men's consenting experiences and sexual resourcefulness skills were observed to be significantly lower than women's. Study limitations and implications 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".