MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416792800 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2016.1186587

Development and Validation of the Sexual Contingent Self-Worth Scale

2016· article· en· W2416792800 on OpenAlexafffund
Maria Danuta Głowacka, Natalie O. Rosen, Sarah A. Vannier, Margaret MacLellan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyHuman sexualityScale (ratio)Construct validityAffect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyClinical psychologyConstruct (python library)Social psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual contingent self-worth (CSW) refers to self-worth that is dependent on maintaining a sexual relationship, and has not been studied previously. This novel construct may have implications for sexual, relationship, and psychological well-being, because it could affect the cognitions, affect, and behaviors of individuals in sexual relationships. The purpose of this study was to develop the Sexual Contingent Self-Worth Scale and examine its reliability and validity in community samples. Two separate online studies (N = 329 and N = 282) included men and women who were in committed, sexually active relationships. The Sexual CSW Scale was adapted from a validated measure of relationship CSW. In Study 1, participants completed the Sexual CSW Scale, whereas in Study 2, participants also responded to standardized measures of related constructs. In addition, participants completed the Sexual CSW Scale again two weeks later in Study 2. Factor analysis yielded two subscales: (a) sexual CSW dependent on positive sexual events in the relationship and (b) sexual CSW dependent on negative sexual events. Results indicated good construct validity, incremental validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability for the Sexual CSW Scale. This research contributes to the fields of both CSW and sexuality by introducing a novel domain of CSW.

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)0.005
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 score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207