A Dyadic Approach to Understanding the Link Between Sexual Functioning and Sexual Satisfaction in Heterosexual Couples
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have demonstrated that several dimensions of sexual functioning (e.g., sexual desire, arousal, orgasm) are associated with the sexual satisfaction of individuals in a committed mixed-sex (male-female) relationship. We extended this research by comparing a dyadic model that included both own (i.e., actor effect) and partner (i.e., partner effect) domains of sexual functioning to an individual model that included only actor effects. Participants were 124 mixed-sex couples who completed online measures of sexual functioning and sexual satisfaction. Data analysis using the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) and structural equation modeling (SEM) indicated that the dyadic model had a better fit than the individual model. Women's sexual desire and orgasm and men's erectile functioning were significant positive predictors of both own and partner's sexual satisfaction. These results are discussed in terms of the importance of taking a dyadic approach to research and clinical work related to sexual satisfaction.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it