MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320710415 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2023.2175194

Responsiveness in the Face of Sexual Challenges: The Role of Sexual Growth and Destiny Beliefs

2023· article· en· W4320710415 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaDalhousie UniversityYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyDestiny (ISS module)Sexual attractionDevelopmental psychologyRomanceReproductive healthSexual behaviorSocial psychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implicit––or lay––sexual beliefs have been associated with how people respond to sexual challenges in romantic relationships. People who endorse sexual destiny beliefs view a satisfying sex life as the result of finding the right partner and report poorer sexual, relationship, and personal well-being when there are sexual challenges. In comparison, people who endorse sexual growth beliefs view satisfying sexual relationships as requiring hard work and effort to maintain and tend to report high sexual, relationship, and personal well-being even when facing sexual challenges. High sexual responsiveness – being motivated to meet a partner’s sexual needs – is associated with maintaining high sexual satisfaction, even when couples face sexual challenges in a relationship. In the current research, we tested whether sexual growth and destiny beliefs are associated with general and sexual responsiveness and whether the associations are moderated by the presence of sexual challenges. Across three (clinical and non-clinical) samples (N = 820) facing different types of sexual challenges (Study 1 (Mage = 31.64, SD = 8.53), clinically low sexual desire; Studies 2 (Mage = 32.63, SD = 10.19) and 3 (Mage = 32.40, SD = 9.31), unmet sexual ideals; Study 3, changes in sex since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic), we found that sexual growth beliefs were associated with higher sexual responsiveness and perceived partner sexual and general responsiveness, even when couples were coping with sexual challenges, whereas sexual destiny beliefs were not associated with responsiveness, and at times were associated with lower sexual responsiveness and perceived partner sexual and general responsiveness. This research provides initial evidence about how implicit sexual beliefs are associated with sexual and general responsiveness when couples are coping with sexual challenges in a romantic relationship.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.220 · 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