Identity, intimacy, status and sex dating goals as correlates of goal‐consistent behavior and satisfaction in Australian youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most common dating goals of adolescents are identity, intimacy, status and sex. In this study of Australian youth (16-30 years, N = 208), dating goals were expected to explain goal-consistent behavior in each domain. Also, goals coupled with consistent behavior were expected to be associated with greater satisfaction in each domain. Age, gender, same-sex versus other-sex attraction, and cohabitation were also examined. The four dating goals had small intercorrelations, and for each domain but sex, youth who reported more of a dating goal also reported more goal-consistent behavior. For identity, intimacy and sex, participants were more satisfied when they had more goal-consistent behavior. Goal × Behavior interactions were associated with satisfaction in the domains of intimacy and sex, and identity was the most salient dating goal domain. Individual differences in goals, behavior and satisfaction were most pronounced for gender and cohabitation. Few differences were found between same-sex and other-sex attracted youth.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".