No Longer in a Dry Spell: The Developing Understanding of How Sex Influences Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex is a defining feature of romantic relationships, yet only recently has research into the implications of sexual processes for such relationships proliferated. We review this work to illustrate how considering the way in which sexual processes influence relationships can help bridge theoretical and empirical work outside and within relationship science. We begin by providing a novel organizational framework for considering how sexual processes influence relationships, illustrating how they can be (a) a direct predictor of relationship outcomes, (b) a mechanism that explains important associations, and (c) a moderator that alters relationship dynamics. We then situate these findings within a dual-process framework for understanding how sex influences relationships and conclude by highlighting several open questions and methodological challenges that remain for future research. Our goal is to demonstrate how considering sexual functioning in light of a variety of theoretical perspectives adds to, and sometimes alters, what we know about relationship dynamics.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".