Entre l’individuel et le social : les motivations d’usage de pornographie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although pornography use is widespread, motivations for use may differ depending on certain identity categories.Analysis This article presents the motivations related to pornography use identified following a metasynthesis as a methodological framework. Using theoretical notions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, the metasynthesis allowed us to combine results derived from thirteen qualitative studies that examined motivations for pornography use among various audiences.Conclusions and implications The motivations identified are: entertainment, sexual satisfaction, fantasy and identity exploration, creation and strengthening of social or emotional ties, learning and information, transgression, and protection. Our results demonstrate that pornography use can be motivated by both social and personal considerations, and suggest that future research should consider the importance of gender and sexual orientation.Contexte Bien que l’usage de pornographie soit répandu, les motivations pour son usage peuvent différer en fonction de certaines catégories identitaires.Analyse Cet article présente les motivations d’usage de pornographie documentées au moyen d’une métasynthèse comme cadre méthodologique. Utilisant les notions théoriques de motivation intrinsèque et extrinsèque, la métasynthèse a permis la mise en commun des résultats de treize études qualitatives réalisées auprès de publics variés.Conclusions et implications Les motivations recensées sont : le divertissement, la satisfaction sexuelle, l’exploration fantasmatique et identitaire, la création et le renforcement de liens sociaux ou affectifs, l’apprentissage et l’information, la transgression et la protection. Les résultats montrent que l’usage de pornographie peut être motivé tant par des considérations sociales que personnelles et soulèvent l’importance de considérer le sexe et l’orientation sexuelle dans les recherches futures.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".