MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3183529583 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.673202

Unsolicited Pics and Sexual Scripts: Gender and Relationship Context of Compliant and Non-consensual Technology-Mediated Sexual Interactions

2021· article· en· W3183529583 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Leigh Courtice, Konrad Czechowski, Pari‐Gole Noorishad, Krystelle Shaughnessy

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PsychologySocial psychologyScripting languageRomanceSexual relationshipClinical psychologyHuman sexualityDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology-mediated sexual interaction (TMSI) refers to any partnered interaction that involves sending or receiving self-created, sexually explicit content using communication technology (e. g., sexting, cybersex). Most research on TMSI assumes that experiences are desired and consensual. However, it is likely that some people do not desire all their TMSI experiences but consent to them anyways (compliance), or experience non-consensual TMSIs. People also engage in TMSIs with different types of partners. According to the traditional sexual script (TSS), other-gender attracted women and men's non-consensual TMSI experiences should differ overall and depending on the relationship context of the experience. The goal of this study was to examine the role of sexual scripts in other-gender attracted women and men's non-consensual and compliant TMSI experiences with committed romantic partners (CRPs), known non-partners (KNPs), and strangers (Ss). Women (n = 331) and men (n = 120) completed an online survey with questions about lifetime prevalence of experiencing seven types of compliant and non-consensual TMSIs in each relationship context. Results of mixed ANOVAs revealed significant interactions: overall, more participants reported compliant TMSI with CRPs. More women than men had received a non-consensual TMSI from someone they were not in a committed relationship with, and more men than women reported sending non-consensual TMSIs to a stranger. Tests of unpaired proportions suggested that the prevalence of sending and receiving non-consensual TMSIs was discordant in the KNP and S contexts: both women and men received more non-consensual TMSIs from KNPs and Ss than the other-gender reported sending. Our findings suggest that gendered sexual scripts are evident in some, but not all, aspect of other-gender attracted women and men's compliant and non-consensual TMSI experiences.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychology→Same topicGender, Feminism, and Media→French-language works237,207→