MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126272978 · doi:10.1177/0146167213490963

Getting It On Versus Getting It Over With

2013· article· en· W2126272978 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologySexual relationshipQuality (philosophy)Sample (material)Sexual desireDevelopmental psychologyHuman sexuality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across three studies, we demonstrate that pursuing sex for approach goals, such as to enhance intimacy, fuels satisfaction and pursuing sex for avoidance goals, such as to avoid disappointing a partner, detracts from satisfaction. In Study 1, we use hypothetical scenarios to provide experimental support for the associations between sexual goals and sexual and relationship satisfaction. In Study 2, a dyadic daily experience study of dating couples, we demonstrate that daily sexual goals are associated with both partners' daily relationship and sexual satisfaction. In Study 3, a dyadic daily experience study, we replicate the daily associations between sexual goals and satisfaction in a sample of long-term couples, and demonstrate that sexual goals impact partner's relationship and sexual quality 4 months later. In all studies, the associations between sexual goals and enhanced satisfaction as reported by both partners were mediated by sexual desire. Implications for research on sexual motivation and close relationships are discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.362
Teacher spread0.286 · 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