Online sexual experiences and relationship functioning in long distance relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, research has sought to understand sexting behaviour among adolescents and young adults. Much of this work is atheoretical and harm-focused, and little research has investigated these behaviours in the context of committed adult romantic relationships. The current study seeks to understand sexting behaviours of adult long distance couples. The context of long distance relationships (LDRs) may be especially relevant for understanding the potential relational benefits of sexting because romantic partners usually have restricted opportunities to experience physical intimacy in this type of relationship. Adopting the intimacy process model as a guiding theoretical framework, we expected to find higher levels of perceived interpersonal closeness, sexual communication, and relationship and sexual satisfaction among long distance couples who practice sexting than those who do not. Results of the study, however, indicated no association between the frequency of sexting and interpersonal closeness among long distance couples. Consistent with our hypothesis, higher levels of sexual communication, relationship and sexual satisfaction were found to be correlated with more frequent sexting practices among these couples. The discussion concerns important theoretical distinctions between sexual communication and the frequency of sexting. Future research should carefully consider how sexual communication is expressed both within and outside of sexting encounters when investigating the role of sexting within LDRs.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".