An Exploration of Factors That Influence Enactment of Affirmative Consent Behaviors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affirmative sexual consent, which is ongoing, continuous, and clearly communicated, appears to be highly inconsistent with the way in which individuals actually negotiate their sexual interactions. The current qualitative research proposes an Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skills (IMB) model of sexual consent behavior and elicits, from young, sexually active informants, elements of information, motivation, and behavioral skills that appear to be necessary for engaging in affirmative consent behaviors. Eleven focus groups were conducted (N = 48 participants), which were semi-structured and guided by questions to tap into information, motivation, and behavioral skills aspects of ascertaining and expressing affirmative sexual consent. Two themes related to Information emerged from the data: (1) consent should be verbal, clear, and ongoing, and (2) consent should be natural and free-flowing. Two themes related to motivation were discussed: (1) affirmative consent is awkward, and (2) explicitly asking for consent can be good, but ascertaining consent indirectly is more comfortable. One theme related to behavioral skills was discussed: (1) social and personal factors influence how easy or hard it is to explicitly discuss consent to sexual activity. Understanding factors that influence affirmative sexual consent is an essential step toward developing interventions to promote consensual sexual interactions and explicit sexual communication.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it