Picking up good vibrations: Discrepant vibrator use, sexual functioning, and sexual well-being in women with male partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vibrator use is thought to be associated with positive sexual functioning for women with female or male partners. Vibrator use that is discrepant across contexts (i.e. the individual uses a vibrator in solitary but not partnered contexts), however, has only been examined in women with female partners. Results indicate that women who were discrepant reported lower sexual functioning than women who were non-discrepant (i.e. those who use a vibrator in both solitary and partnered contexts). The current study recruited 488 participants online to examine if discrepant vibrator use was related to sexual functioning, sexual satisfaction, and the perceived balance of sexual rewards to costs (i.e. ratio of preferred to non-preferred aspects of the sexual relationship). There were no observed differences across the groups of women who reported discrepant, non-discrepant, or no vibrator use on sexual functioning domains. Women with non-discrepant vibrator use reported greater sexual satisfaction than those with discrepant use, and they also reported a greater balance of sexual rewards to costs relative to women with discrepant or no vibrator use. The results of this study suggest that discrepant vibrator use is not related to sexual functioning but is related to sexual well-being in women with male partners.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".