MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attachment, sexual experience, and sexual pressure in romantic relationships: A dyadic approach

2007· article· en· W2060341940 on OpenAlexaffabout
Audrey Brassard, Phillip R. Shaver, Yves A. Lussier

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonal Relationships · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySexual coercionRomanceAttachment theoryDevelopmental psychologyAnxietySexual behaviorSocial psychologySexual intercourseLimitingClinical psychologyPoison controlInjury preventionPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The goal of this research was to extend the previously documented associations between attachment style and sexual experiences in samples of adolescents and college students to adult couples in committed romantic relationships. A sample of 273 French‐Canadian heterosexual couples aged 18–35 years completed measures of attachment‐related anxiety and avoidance, sexual coercion, and sexual experiences in their relationships. Avoidant attachment was related to two strategies for limiting intimacy in sexual relationships: avoidance of sexual encounters and avoidance of sexual fantasies about one’s partner (the latter for women only). Anxious attachment appeared to interfere with comfortable intimacy, especially among men, who viewed their partner as avoiding sex and who applied more insistent pressure to have sex.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations195
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonal RelationshipsSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207