MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193833836 · doi:10.3138/cjhs.243-a1

The structure of casual sexual relationships and experiences among single adults aged 18–30 years old: A latent profile analysis

2015· article· en· W2193833836 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Carl Rodrigue, Martin Blais, Francine Lavoie, Barry D. Adam, Céline Magontier, Marie-France Goyer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of WindsorUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualFriendshipRomancePsychologyGeneral partnershipDevelopmental psychologySexual relationshipSexual attractionSexual partnerSocial psychologyLatent class modelSexual behaviorHuman sexualityMedicineGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on casual sexual relationships and experiences (CSREs) has increased in the last decade; however, there is no consensus about the scope and definition of CSREs. To describe the main forms of CSREs, a latent profile analysis was performed on single and sexually active men and women aged from 18 to 30 years old who described their last casual sexual experience. Five profiles were identified: 1) the one-time sexual encounter; 2) the ex-romantic partnership, in which one still has sexual contact after ending their romantic relationship; 3) the mostly about sex partnership, in which contacts are primarily sexual, whether or not a friendship exists; 4) the intimate and sexual partnership, a hybrid of friend and romantic partner with whom one has frequent sexual and social interactions without commitment or intent to form a couple; 5) the friendship first partnership, a friendship to which sex is added, where social activities and friendly interactions dominate. Participants across profiles differed according to the number of sexual partners in the past year, their intention of having other sexual contacts with the partner, being under the influence of alcohol or drugs during the most recent sexual encounter with their partner and their type of sexual exclusivity agreement. This research contributes to a better description and understanding of CSREs among young adults and to further specifying its area of investigation.

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)0.002
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 score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Human SexualitySame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207