MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593463156 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2017.1293603

The Effects of Subjective Age and Aging Attitudes on Mid- to Late-Life Sexuality

2017· article· en· W2593463156 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Estill, Steven E. Mock, Emily Schryer, Richard P. Eibach

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsHuman sexualityFeelingPsychologySuccessful agingDevelopmental psychologyQuality of life (healthcare)GerontologyHealthy agingDemographyMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the effects of subjective age and attitudes about aging on frequency of sex and interest in sexual activity among middle-aged and older adults. Data were drawn from two waves of the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study (n = 1,170 adults, mean age Time 1 = 53.70 years, SD = 9.08). Regression analyses were used to investigate the effects of subjective age and attitudes about aging on three measures of sexuality: frequency of sex, perceived quality of sexual activity, and interest in sexual activity, over 10 years. The older participants felt and the less positive their views of aging, the less they rated sexual activity as enjoyable over time. Feeling older (though not attitudes about aging) also predicted less interest in sex. Subjective age and beliefs about aging did not have an impact on frequency of sex. Although frequency of sex was not predicted by subjective aging and aging attitudes, the results suggested that subjective age and stereotypic views on aging may shape the experience of sex in later life.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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