MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892057002

How Young Canadian Women Make Sense of their Experiences of Sexting

2018· dissertation· en· W2892057002 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erin Watson, Robin R. Milhausen, Olga Smoliak, Andrea Breen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSense (electronics)Sense of placePsychologySociologyEngineeringSocial scienceElectrical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexting, which refers to the exchange of erotic content via mobile or internet device, is an increasingly common activity among emerging adults (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010; PEW Research Centre, 2010; Samimi & Alderson, 2014). Much of the current research on sexting focuses on the associations between sexting and risk or harm, specifically for women (e.g. Benotsch, Snipes, Martin, & Bull, 2013; Dir, Cyders, & Coskunpinar, 2013; Perkins, Becker, Tehee, & Mackelprang, 2014). However, emerging research suggests sexting can also have benefits for young women, including experiences of pleasure and opportunities for self-exploration (Bond, 2011; Ringrose, Gill, & Livingstone, 2013). The purpose of this research was to investigate how young Canadian women describe their experiences with sexting. Specifically the study answered the following research questions: (1) How/in what ways do young Canadian women use sexting? (2) What role does sexting play in young Canadian women’s lives, sexualities, and relationships? (3) How does sexting impact young Canadian women? (4) What do young Canadian women need to support safe and enjoyable sexting? Thirty women between the ages of 18-25 were recruited online from Southern Ontario colleges and universities and were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis suggested 7 key themes (in no specific order). Sexting supports: (1) Empowerment: from pleasing others to speaking up more and attending to their own sexual needs; (2) Pleasure: from the expansion of sexual possibilities; (3) Safety and Comfort: sexting was described as safer and more comfortable than in-person communications, but led to increased fears about privacy; (4) Self-Discovery: by aiding in the exploration of sexual tastes and orientation; (5) Optimal Self-Representation: helping women “craft” ideal representations of themselves; and (6) Intimacy and Connection: helping to increase trust, improve communication, and maintain relationships. The women also described the impact of, and how they navigated or resisted, gendered sexual expectations ((7) Sexual Scripts). The study contributes to the literature by helping contextualise young women’s experiences of sexting and illuminating how young women could be better supported in their sexting behaviours. The results of this study can be used inform policy, curriculum and advocacy initiatives.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicGender, Feminism, and MediaFrench-language works237,207