Friends with benefits: Are They Really Beneficial?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A friend with benefits relationship (FWBR) represents what is commonly described as friends engaging in sexual activities without defining this as a committed romantic relationship. The majority of research findings come from American and Canadian studies, especially since in western culture this kind of casual sexual relations is considered normative and engraved in pop culture, and the main goal of this study was to examine the characteristics of FWBRs among Croatian students. 400 students from several universities participated in this research. 65% of them were female students, and 35 % were male students with average age of 22. Participants were asked to fill up an online questionnaire about characteristics of FWBRs. Questions about FWBRs were derived from previous studies and from preliminary research. In general, results showed no gender differences in FWBRs experience, but more male students who have not had this kind of relationships wished they would in the future. Sex was the major motive for male students to engage in FWBRs, while for female students it was the possibility of developing committed romantic relationship. Main reason for female students to end FWBRs was developing romantic emotions. More male students expected that after ending FWBRs the friendship would remain intact. Major benefit for male and female students was casual sex with no commitment, but major disadvantages were developing romantic emotions, breakup of friendship and developing negative emotions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".