University Students’ Sexual Identity Development as a Determinant of Sexual Self-Hood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual identity development was explored as a predictor of sexual self-concept and erotophobia–erotophilia using a student sample. Sexual identity development was operationalized using Worthington et al.’s Measure of Sexual Identity Development, which is theoretically based on Marcia’s identity model. Based on Worthington et al.’s scale, there are four sexual identity development domains: commitment to one’s sexual identity, exploration of one’s sexual identity, sexual orientation uncertainty, and synthesis/integration of one’s sexual identity. Several of Snell’s Sexual Self-Concept scales (e.g., sexual depression, sexual self-efficacy) and Tromovitch’s Comfort with Sexuality scales (e.g., comfort talking about sexuality, comfort with the sexual activities of others) were used to define sexual self-concept and erotophobia–erotophilia, respectively. A sample of students enrolled in an introductory psychology course at a Canadian university completed these instruments. Results suggest that sexual identity development was strongly predictive of sexual self-concept scales, multivariately. Sexual identity development was also predictive of comfort with sexuality. Sexual self-concept and erotophobia–erotophilia were also related to each other. These relationships supported the idea that a positive sexual identity development process contributes to a favorable view of the sexual self. However, the study was cross-sectional and correlational, so conclusions about directionality are preliminary and causality cannot be inferred.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".