Toward Renewed Constructions of Masculinity and Femininity: Measuring Significant Psychological Differences between Young Men and Women’s Subjective Experiences in Their Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study focuses on newly conceptualized and observed significant differences between men andwomen regarding their subjective experience of their intimate relationships. The experimental paradigm wasbased on a new theory of masculinity and femininity developed by Lamontagne (2010), proposing one respectivefactor per dimension. This study (1) re-evaluates Lamontagne’s initial findings using a modified qualitative tooland a new quantitative measure: The Questionnaire of Objectality and Subjectality (QOS; Gabbay, 2010); (2)verifies the QOS’ psychometric properties; (3) evaluates inter-sex differences on proposed factors; and (4)examines complementarity of femininity and masculinity between romantic partners. The modified qualitativetool, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974), and the QOS were administered to 134 individuals.Findings supported a theoretically coherent factor structure. Subscales demonstrated good reliability and theexpected correlations with the BSRI. Gender differences were qualitatively and quantitatively significant. Withincouples, partners’ relative femininity and masculinity were complementary.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".