MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205359954 · doi:10.1177/21676968211064109

Exploration of Emerging Adult Virgins’ Difficulties

2022· article· en· W4205359954 on OpenAlexafffund
Audrey J. Leroux, Marie-Aude Boislard

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Adulthood · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVirginity testPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyThematic analysisPopulationInterpersonal communicationAdult developmentSocial psychologyQualitative researchSociologyDemographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social clock theory posits that off-time transitions, such as virginity loss, are often socially reproached and stigmatized. Research suggests, however, that reasons for virginity in adulthood are heterogeneous and that some emerging adult virgins (EAVs) are struggling socially. To guide the development of interventions tailored to this population, it is important to understand their difficulties. Through individual semi-structured interviews, this study explores the difficulties and disagreeable emotions experienced by 29 heterosexual virgins aged between 20 and 29. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Three main themes were identified: (a) difficulties related to society, (b) difficulties related to interpersonal relationships, and (c) disagreeable emotions experienced relative to late virginity. These results reveal that difficulties expressed by EAVs are intertwined and surprisingly, the most salient difficulty was related to lack of intimacy, rather than virginity per se. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed, along with recommendations for future research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging AdulthoodSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207