MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046771307 · doi:10.1037/adb0000603

Why do people watch pornography? The motivational basis of pornography use.

2020· article· en· W3046771307 on OpenAlexafffund
Beáta Bőthe, István Tóth‐Király, Nóra Bella, Marc N. Potenza, Zsolt Demetrovics, Gábor Orosz

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology of Addictive Behaviors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaConcordia UniversityEmberi Eroforrások MinisztériumaState of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction ServicesNational Center for Responsible Gaming
KeywordsBoredomPsychologyConfirmatory factor analysisPornographyPleasureStructural equation modelingMeasurement invarianceConstruct validityPsycINFOSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

₃) yielded strong psychometric properties. Further corroborating the structural validity of the Pornography Use Motivations Scale (PUMS), gender-based measurement invariance was tested, and associations of the frequency of pornography use (FPU), problematic pornography use (PPU), and PUM were examined. Men-compared to women-demonstrated higher scores on all motivations except for sexual curiosity and self-exploration. Based on the results of SEM, we found that sexual pleasure, boredom avoidance, and stress reduction motivations showed positive, weak-to-moderate associations with FPU. Motivations relating to stress reduction, emotional distraction or suppression, boredom avoidance, fantasy, and sexual pleasure had positive, weak-to-moderate associations with PPU. The PUMS is a reliable scale to assess the most common PUM in general populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations178
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology of Addictive BehaviorsSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207