MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118641480 · doi:10.1007/s13644-020-00440-z

Sanctified Sexual Relationships in Marriage: Reflections from Religious Wives and Husbands

2021· article· en· W3118641480 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

VenueReview of Religious Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNexus (standard)JudaismPsychologySociology of religionGender studiesSocial psychologySociologySocial scienceTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Religion and sex are both prominent elements of most people's lives. Most adults view both religion and sex as quite important in their lives. However, some research indicates that religion may negatively impact individuals’ perspectives on sex. Purpose We examined highly religious individuals’ spontaneous comments of the role of religion and sex in their lives and looked for themes in how sex and religion may be associated. Methods We conducted in-depth, qualitative interviews using a racially and ethnically diverse sample consisting of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish families comprised of 198 married heterosexual couples based on conjoint interviews with the husbands and wives. Couples were in long-term marriages (average 20 years) were interviewed together when most (93%) were in their 40s and 50s in 2001–2010. The topic of the nexus of religion and sexual relationships was not on the interview questionnaire but still surfaced in many of the interviews. Results We analyzed participants’ comments related to sex and found six themes that revealed these religious families’ perspectives on the purpose of sex, including: 1. The sanctity of sex; 2. The expression of sex is limited to marriage; 3. Sex strengthens the marriage; 4. Sex is for procreation; 5. Sex is just one component of a strong marriage; and 6. Religious beliefs can be damaging. Implications and applications are discussed. Conclusions and Implications This study also illustrates that how individuals, marriages, and families interpret and apply the teachings of their respective religion may have more to do with the influence of religion than their particular denomination or their religious attendance. Sexuality was viewed as a covenant, a higher purpose, a form of worship, or even a way to make God happy, but only within the bonds of marriage. Couples identified their sexual relationship with Godly characteristics and this provided a sense of power and sanctification. These findings may provide needed insight to religious couples about how and why sex and religion blend or create conflict.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.281 · 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