Thirty years of sexual behaviour at a Canadian university: Romantic relationships, hooking up, and sexual choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every 10 years from 1980 to 2010, students in a British Columbia university were surveyed about age of sexual initiation, number of partners, and degree of emotional intimacy within their partnerships. Between 1980 and 1990, the socially acceptable prerequisite for premarital sex appeared to shift from the promise of marriage to mutual love. This change was demonstrated by a fall in the virginity rate among unmarried females, and the rise of monogamous romantic relationships for males. From 1980 through 2010, men reported more sexual partners than did women, with a smaller, though rising, proportion of serious relationships. Since 1990, never-married students were classified into three sexual behavioural groups: monogamists (about 55%), abstainers (30%), and multi-partnered “experimenters” (20% of men throughout each decade, and 7.6% of women in 1990–2000, rising to 14.4% in 2010). Experimenters generally reported concurrent partners, most of them casual. Since 1980, most sexually active students have experienced both romantic relationships and casual sexual partnerships, yet since at least 1990, the majority have been primarily monogamous. This article traces the changes and continuities in romantic relationships, casual sex, and sexual behavioural groups over 30 years, concluding that contrary to the claims of popular media and some academics, casual sex (“hookup culture”) has not replaced romantic relationships as the most common form of student sexual behaviour.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".