MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557665277 · doi:10.3138/cjhs.253-a1

Negative affectivity in females' identification of their nonconsensual sexual experiences and sexual dissatisfaction

2016· article· en· W2557665277 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chelsea D. Kilimnik, Paul D. Trapnell, Terry P. Humphreys

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegative affectivityPsychologyPsychosexual developmentClinical psychologySexual orientationConstrual level theoryDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Very little research has examined the adjustment differences between those who identify their nonconsensual sexual experiences (NSEs) as sexual assault and those who do not, despite both groups meeting the legal criteria for having experienced sexual assault. Identifying differences between NSE identifiers and non-identifiers may help to illuminate psychosexual factors in NSE construal, emotional reactivity, and resilience in sexual outcomes. This study examines the association of individuals' NSE self-identification and negative affectivity with women's sexual dissatisfaction in an undergraduate sample. Participants (N=126) completed measures of negative affectivity five months before completing measures of sexual satisfaction and NSE history. Results indicated that negative affectivity has a robust independent association with NSE identification and sexual concerns for women who report NSEs, corresponding to legal definitions of sexual assault. In addition, no differences were found between identifiers and non-identifiers on sexual dissatisfaction, suggesting NSE history may have more to do with sexual satisfaction in these women than the construal of the event.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Human SexualitySame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207