MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048461578 · doi:10.1177/0146167220942361

Singles’ Sexual Satisfaction is Associated With More Satisfaction With Singlehood and Less Interest in Marriage

2020· article· en· W3048461578 on OpenAlexaff
Yoobin Park, Emily A. Impett, Geoff MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLife satisfactionSocial psychologyPerceptionSexual desireHuman sexualityGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the worldwide increase in single-person households, little research has examined what factors contribute to a satisfying single life. We used three data sets ( N = 3,890) to examine how satisfaction with sexual and social aspects of life are linked with single people’s perceptions of marriage and singlehood. Our results suggest that higher sexual satisfaction is associated with less desire to marry (Study 1), stronger beliefs that unmarried people can be happy without marriage (Study 2), and greater satisfaction with singlehood and less desire for a partner (Study 3). All effects in Studies 1 and 3 remained significant controlling for life satisfaction and sexual frequency. Satisfying friendships were associated with variables related to satisfaction with singlehood but not variables related to desire for a partner, whereas no effect was found for satisfaction with family. This study highlights the potential importance of maintaining a satisfying sex life in people’s satisfaction with singlehood.

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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations86
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology BulletinSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207