MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091634537 · doi:10.1080/00224490903132051

Sex without Desire: Characteristics of Occasions of Sexual Compliance in Young Adults' Committed Relationships

2009· article· en· W2091634537 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah A. Vannier, Lucia F. O’Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)PsychologyFeelingContext (archaeology)PleasureSexual behaviorSexual intercourseDevelopmental psychologySexual attractionSocial psychologyCondomSexual desireYoung adultHuman sexualityMedicinePopulationGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual compliance (i.e., willingly engaging in sexual activity that one does not desire) is a common behavior among young people. Little is known about the characteristics of occasions of sexual compliance in the context of a committed relationship. This study used both a diary method and in-depth interviews to assess occasions of sexual compliance, as well as types of sexual activity, condom use, pleasure, and feelings of pressure and control. Participants included 63 young adults (18-24 years old) in committed, heterosexual relationships. Seventeen percent of all sexual activity was rated as sexually compliant. Occasions of sexual compliance were rated as less enjoyable and more unexpected. In-depth interviews revealed four key themes including endorsement of an implicit contract between partners, partner awareness of low desire, past experience of pressure, and justification for reporting low desire. Future research should evaluate the long-term impact of sexual compliance on a relationship.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations133
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207