The Sexual Self as a Function of Relationship Status in an Emerging Adult Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sample of emerging adult university students completed a survey with the goal of investigating components of "the sexual self" and how these constructs were influenced by romantic relationship status. Three general aspects of the sexual self were considered: sexual self-concept, comfort with sexuality, and past sexual behavior. Sexual self-concept was defined as composed of constructs such as sexual self-schema, self-efficacy, consciousness, optimism, problem self-blame, power/other control, and motivation to avoid risky sex. Sexual comfort, conceptualized as a personality disposition of erotophobia-erotophilia, was assessed using three instruments. This included the Sexual Opinion Survey, the original individual difference measure of erotophobia-erotophilia. Past sexual behavior was assessed with the Derogatis Sexual Functioning Inventory. Findings suggested that individuals in a relationship had more positive sexual self-concepts and were more erotophilic and comfortable with sexuality generally. These differences were modest, based on effect size statistics. Past sexual experience also differed, contingent on relationship status. Some sexual self-concept scales were predictive of sexual satisfaction, while comfort with sexuality was predictive of relational satisfaction. Romantic relationships may have important implications for sexual selfhood, but this is a tentative suggestion, as this was a correlational study and the relationships are likely bidirectional.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".