MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W25620264

Who Has Seen What When? Pornography’s Contribution to the Social Construction of Sexuality During Childhood and Adolescence

2007· article· en· W25620264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bente Skau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityPornographyDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyGender studiesSociologyPsychoanalysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pornography has a ubiquitous place in contemporary Canadian Society. With or without intention, children and youth are frequently exposed to pornographic images and depictions. There is little research detailing the types of exposure that occur and the impact of said exposure on this population. Through a detailed survey administered to approximately 450 first-year college and university students in Ontario, this retrospective and exploratory study answers the query, “when and to what type of pronography are children and young adults exposed and how does this exposure relate to subsequent sexual behaviours and attitudes?” Following a deatiled escription of pornography exposure, indicating the source, medium, and the content, current pornographic consumption is documented and related to sexual practices and attitudes. Significant relationships were detected between early pornographic exposure and early engagement in sexual activities. Parental attitudes and behaviour were found to be related to both early exposure and subsequent pornography use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.318
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207