Between the Sheets: Attachment, Communication and Sexuality During Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence is a pivotal period for the development of romantic relationships and sexuality. Yet most studies on adolescents focus on risky sexual practices to the detriment of more positive dimensions such as romantic attachment, communication and quality of sexual life. The aim of this study was to develop a profile of adolescent couples’ sexuality, investigate gender differences and the association between romantic attachment and sexual outcomes. A sample of 104 adolescent couples (aged 15–21 years) dating for at least 2 months were recruited. Self-reported measures assessed romantic attachment (anxiety over abandonment and avoidance of intimacy) and sexual outcomes (sexual communication, affectionate and sexual behaviors, sexual quality of life and comfort with sexuality). Couples reported a high level of satisfaction and communication, although gender differences were observed. Boys reported significantly more avoidance of intimacy than girls. For girls, anxiety over abandonment was not associated with sexual outcomes but avoidance of intimacy was negatively correlated with sexual communication (r=-.21, p<.05) affectionate behaviors (r=-.23, p<.05) and level of comfort with sexuality (r=-.32, p<.001). A negative correlation between anxiety over abandonment and communication of sexual needs (r =-.22; p<0.05), level of comfort with sexuality (r =-.26; p<.001), and sexual quality of life (r =-.20; p<.05) was observed for boys. Similar results were obtained for avoidance of intimacy. Finally, anxiety over abandonment for boys was positively correlated to the frequency of affectionate behaviors (r=.20; p<.05) while avoidance of intimacy was negatively correlated to these behaviors (r=-.24; p<.05).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".