Netflix and chill?: Exploring and refining differing motivations in friends with benefits relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work on friends with benefits relationships (FWBRs) has demonstrated a need for more specific attention to exploring the motivations for engaging in such relationships. Moreover, recent research has revealed new developments in the complexities of FWBRs in general, prompting a reevaluation of previously noted trends. This manuscript contains two studies. Study 1 used open coding to condense the existing typologies of FWBR motivations, uncovering a previously undocumented motivation, labeled sliding. Study 2 replicates study 1, and also accounts for multiple simultaneous motivations as well as potential motivational changes throughout the duration of FWBRs. Results reveal that most people in FWBRs only experience one motivation for engaging in their relationships. Moreover, motivations tend to change as FWBRs develop, including desires for relational escalation, de-escalation, and companionship. Sex differences as well as relationship type differences are discussed as well.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".