MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282579702 · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2022.2086511

The Relationship between Boredom Proneness, Attachment Styles and Compulsive Sexual Behavior

2022· article· en· W4282579702 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eli Coleman, Ryan L. Rahm-Knigge, Samuel Danielson, Katja H. Nielsen, Neil Gleason, Todd L. Jennings, Michael H. Miner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sex & Marital Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto
KeywordsBoredomModerationPsychologyAttachment theoryAffect (linguistics)AnxietyAffect regulationInsecure attachmentDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Affect regulation is associated with compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) despite ongoing debate about its inclusion in diagnostic criteria. Previous studies on two specific affect regulation constructs - boredom proneness and attachment styles - suggest that affect regulation is associated with CSB. We tested a moderation model of the effects of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance on the relationship between boredom proneness and CSB. Results indicate that the relationship between boredom proneness and CSB is stronger at higher levels of attachment anxiety, with no interaction between boredom proneness and attachment avoidance. Overall findings support the importance of affect regulation in conceptualizing and treating CSB.

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)0.007
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sex & Marital TherapySame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207