MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179877759 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2015.1061633

Extradyadic Sexual Involvement and Sexual Compulsivity in Male and Female Sexual Abuse Survivors

2015· article· en· W2179877759 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Pier Vaillancourt‐Morel, Caroline Dugal, Rébécca Poirier Stewart, Natacha Godbout, Stéphane Sabourin, Yvan Lussier, John Briere

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologySexual behaviorMediationSexual abuseSexual relationshipCompulsive behaviorHuman sexualityInjury preventionMedicinePoison control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested a mediation model in which the relationship between child sexual abuse (CSA) severity and extradyadic sexual involvement (ESI) is explained through sexual compulsivity. Participants were 669 adults currently involved in an intimate relationship who completed self-report questionnaires. Prevalence of ESI was 32% in women and 57% in men survivors, more than twice the rates among participants with no CSA history. Sexual compulsivity was significantly higher in participants with multiple extradyadic partners as compared to participants reporting only one extradyadic relationship, who nevertheless scored higher than participants reporting no extradyadic partner. The hypothesized structural equation model (SEM) was invariant across men and women and indicated CSA severity was positively and significantly associated with sexual compulsivity, which, in turn, predicted ESI. However, there was also a direct association between CSA and ESI. High CSA severity, directly and through high sexual compulsivity, led to the highest probability of ESI.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207