The Sexual Well-Being of Women Who Have Experienced Child Sexual Abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the association between child sexual abuse (CSA) and a range of positive and negative aspects of women's sexual well-being. We also investigated the extent to which women's cognitive-affective sexual appraisals mediated these relationships. Participants were 272 female community college and university students. CSA involving fondling only was generally not associated with adverse sexual outcomes. However, the women who had experienced CSA involving sexual penetration or attempted sexual penetration were (a) more likely to be sexually revictimized in adulthood; (b) more likely to have engaged in casual sex, unprotected sex, and voluntary sexual abstinence; and (c) reported fewer sexual rewards, more sexual costs, and lower sexual self-esteem. These findings held over and above the effects of nonsexual abuse in childhood, and as predicted, sexual self-esteem partially or fully mediated most of these relationships. Nonsexual abuse in childhood and adult sexual victimization were also uniquely associated with a number of adverse sexual outcomes. However, outcomes were not worse for women who had experienced CSA involving actual or attempted sexual penetration and sexual assault in adulthood. The results highlight the fact that CSA is a serious and widespread problem with significant implications for adult women's sexual functioning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".