Integration of sexual and relational mental representations in autobiographical memories is associated with sexual well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determinants of sexual well-being have often been identified as sexual and relational satisfaction, which both include a focus on partner relationship. Such a conceptualization excludes sexually active single individuals, while confusing sexual and relational satisfaction with sexual well-being as both determinant and outcome. In this research, we propose an intrapersonal perspective focused on cognitive sexual and relational mental representations as determinants of sexual well-being. Based on behavioral systems theory, we suggest that a high level of integration of sexual and relational mental representations should be associated with sexual well-being indicators, whereas a weaker level of integration should correspond to a lower level of sexual well-being. We developed a novel codification scheme to measure the cognitive integration of sexual and relational mental representations in narratives of sexual autobiographical memories. We examined its associations with sexual well-being indicators (satisfaction, passion, and sociosexuality). In a sample of 142 students, results showed that integration of sexual and relational representations in memories was positively associated with sexual satisfaction and harmonious passion, and negatively with obsessive passion and sociosexual desire. Results suggest that an integrated cognitive organization of sexual and relational mental representations in autobiographical memories can reflect a greater sexual well-being. Clinical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".