Sexual well-being of a community sample of high-functioning adults on the autism spectrum who have been in a romantic relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored factors (gender, age, relationship status, symptomatology) associated with the sexual well-being of 141 (56 men and 85 women) adults with high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome (HFA/AS) living in the community. Participants completed an online survey consisting of a measure of autistic symptoms as well as measures of dyadic and solitary sexual well-being. Canonical correlation analyses showed that participants who were currently in a romantic relationship reported more frequent dyadic affectionate and genital activity and greater sexual assertiveness and sexual satisfaction, pointing to the importance of context in an active sex life. After controlling for the first variate, men and individuals with less autism symptomatology, particularly in the social and communication domains, generally reported significantly greater dyadic sexual well-being, including greater sexual satisfaction, assertiveness, arousability, and desire and lower sexual anxiety and fewer sexual problems. Men also reported better solitary sexual well-being, including more sexual thoughts, more sexual desire, and more frequent solitary sexual activity; however, they had lower sexual knowledge. These results highlight the importance for research and sexuality education with individuals with HFA/AS to conceptualize sexual well-being as a multidimensional construct consisting of both dyadic and solitary aspects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".