Sexual consent: Exploring the perceptions of heterosexual and non-heterosexual men
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current understanding of sexual consent negotiation is grounded in research conducted with heterosexual populations, and little is understood about how non-heterosexual men (bisexual, bi-curious, two-spirited, other) navigate these processes. A sample of 251 heterosexual men and 313 non-heterosexual men participated in an online survey where they were asked to respond to an open-ended question that addressed their perceptions of the differences between how heterosexual and non-heterosexual men negotiate sexual consent. Participants were recruited through social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter), Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, and via the distribution of flyers/posters. The sample consisted of men from Canada, the United States, and Western Europe. Basic demographic information was gathered along with self-identified sexual orientation. Four main themes were derived through the thematic analysis of responses:understanding of sexual interactions, understanding of sexual script, unique challenges, and the universality of sexual consent. Findings provide initial insight into some of the perceived differences and barrier both non-heterosexual and heterosexual men face in negotiating sexual consent and highlight some of the entrenched heteronormative beliefs that both heterosexual and non-heterosexual men endorse. Results can serve to inform social interactions, education, and policymaking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it