MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083155322 · doi:10.1037/fam0000796

Sanctification or inhibition? Religious dualities and sexual satisfaction.

2020· article· en· W3083155322 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanctificationPsychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 481 dyads, Study 2). Religiosity consistently had a positive indirect association with sexual satisfaction through sexual sanctification; little evidence suggested religiosity had an indirect association with sexual satisfaction through inhibited sexual passion. When accounting for these mechanisms simultaneously, however, religiosity consistently had a negative direct association with sexual satisfaction, supporting the possibility of religious dualities. In the couple study, men's religiosity predicted their partner reporting higher sexual sanctification (for married couples), but women's religiosity did not predict partner sexual sanctification. Altogether, these results paint a complex picture for how religiosity might influence sexuality. Understanding the nuance of these results may help people maximize the potential benefits of their belief systems in sexual relationships. (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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.240 · 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