032 Effects of Pornography Use on the Couple Relationship: Results of “Bottom-Up,” Participant-Informed, Qualitative Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable research has emerged concerning effects of pornography on couple relationships. “Top-down” close-ended quantitative investigations have targeted a limited number of primarily harm-focused effects for study. A small body of qualitative research offers tantalizing glimpses of potential effects that have been overlooked in “top-down” close-ended quantitative research. The aim of the current “bottom-up” participant-informed, qualitative research was to identify a range of participant reported effects of pornography use on couple relationships that have been overlooked in “top-down,” close-ended, quantitative studies. An online survey recruited men (n = 219) and women (n = 211) who were currently in a heterosexual relationship where at least one partner had experience with pornography use. Open-ended questions probed participants’ perceptions of the impacts that their solitary pornography use, their partners’ solitary pornography use, and/or their shared pornography use, has had on their relationships. Responses were analyzed using Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
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 | 0.048 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".