Sexual functioning of late adolescents and young adults in relationships: association with individual characteristics and relationship factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research provides few insights regarding the sexual functioning of late adolescents and young adults who are currently in a committed romantic relationship, a context that likely affects their sexual functioning. We sought to identify individual and relationship factors associated with their sexual functioning. Participants were 409 individuals (172 men, 237 women; 18–24 years) who completed an online survey assessing their sexual functioning, individual characteristics, cognitive-affective appraisals of their romantic relationship, sexual frequency, and sexual communication. Significantly more women (22.8%) than men (4.7%) reported a sexual problem. These rates are lower than typically found in this age group. In addition, substantial numbers of men and women reported less than optimal sexual functioning in one or more sexual response domain that did not reach the level of a sexual problem. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed that being male and reporting greater partner caring, relationship satisfaction, sexual frequency, and verbal sexual communication were unique predictors of more positive sexual functioning. One explanation for these findings is that being in a committed relationship may counter poor sexual functioning for young people because global positive feelings about the partner provide a safe context to figure out then communicate their sexual wants and needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".