MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809391754 · doi:10.1177/2329496518780929

Risk or Release?: Porn Use Trajectories and the Accumulation of Sexual Partners

2018· article· en· W2809391754 on OpenAlexaff
Kyler R. Rasmussen, Alex Bierman

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Currents · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPornographyConsumption (sociology)PsychologySocial psychologySexual behaviorLongitudinal studyDevelopmental psychologySociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A central question in the study of pornography consumption is whether consumption influences risky sexual behavior. In this research, we focus on one key aspect of risky sexual behavior, the accumulation of sexual partners. Using longitudinal latent class analysis of a nationally representative sample, we determine distinct trajectories of pornography consumption. We then use hurdle models to relate membership in these trajectories to the initiation of sexual activity and accumulation of sexual partners. Even with controls for likely confounds (such as risk-taking propensity and relationship formation), we find that adolescents with a trajectory of early and regular pornography use are more likely to report the initiation of sexual activity and nearly double the number of sexual partners as those with a low-use trajectory. This research is of sociological interest because pornography consumption is becoming increasingly common well before adulthood, suggesting that recent cohorts of emerging adults may be more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior through the accumulation of multiple sexual partners.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial CurrentsSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207