MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243326846 · doi:10.1080/10417940902787939

Predicting Sexual Satisfaction in Interpersonal Relationships

2010· article· en· W4243326846 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Betty H. La France

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern Communication Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityPsychologyRomanceInterpersonal communicationSexual desireContext (archaeology)Interpersonal relationshipSocial psychologyGender studiesSociologyPsychoanalysisHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two theoretical models hypothesized to predict sexual satisfaction were assessed. The Sexual Knowledge and Influence Model (SKIM), generated from Metts and colleagues' sexual communication research (Cupach & Metts, 1991 Cupach , W. R. , & Metts , S. (1991). Sexuality and communication in close relationships. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher's (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 93–110). Hillsdale , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar], 1995 Cupach , W. R. , & Metts , S. ( 1995 ). The role of sexual attitude similarity in romantic heterosexual relationships . Personal Relationships , 2 , 287 – 300 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Metts & Cupach, 1989 Metts , S. , & Cupach , W. R. ( 1989 ). The role of communication in human sexuality . In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Human sexuality: The societal and interpersonal context (pp. 139 – 161 ). Norwood , NJ : Ablex Publishing Corporation . [Google Scholar]; Metts & Spitzberg, 1996 Metts , S. , & Spitzberg , B. H. ( 1996 ). Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: A script-based approach . In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 19 (pp. 49 – 91 ). Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage .[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) and Luft's (1969 Luft , J. ( 1969 ). Of human interaction . Palo Alto , CA : National Press . [Google Scholar]) Johari window, delineates that willingness to communicate and sexual knowledge jointly predict sexual satisfaction. Alternatively, Byers's Interpersonal Exchange Model of Sexual Satisfaction (IEMSS; Byers, 2001 Byers , E. S. ( 2001 ). Evidence for the importance of relationship satisfaction for women's sexual functioning . In E. Kaschak & L. Tiefer's (Eds.), A new view of women's sexual problems (pp. 23 – 26 ). Binghamton , NY : The Haworth Press . [Google Scholar]; Byers & Demmons, 1999 Byers , E. S. , & Demmons , S. ( 1999 ). Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships . The Journal of Sex Research , 36 , 180 – 189 .[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Byers & Wang, 2004 Byers , E. S. , & Wang , A. ( 2004 ). Understanding sexuality in close relationships from the social exchange perspective . In J. H. Harvey , A. Wenzel , & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 203 – 234 ). Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates . [Google Scholar]; Lawrance & Byers, 1992 Lawrance , K. , & Byers , E. S. ( 1992 ). Development of the interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction in long-term relationships . The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality , 1 , 123 – 127 . [Google Scholar], 1995 Lawrance , K. , & Byers , E. S. ( 1995 ). Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction . Personal Relationships , 2 , 267 – 285 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) suggests that exchange variables predict sexual satisfaction. Regression analyses demonstrated that these data were consistent with a combined model in which sexual knowledge and sexual exchange variables were successful at predicting individuals' sexual satisfaction levels.

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)0.015
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouthern Communication JournalSame topicAttachment and Relationship DynamicsFrench-language works237,207