Uncovering the most robust predictors of problematic pornography use: A large-scale machine learning study across 16 countries.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 16) were combined to identify which factors can best predict PPU using an artificial intelligence-based method (i.e., machine learning). We conducted random forest models on each data set to examine how different sociodemographic, psychological, and other characteristics predict PPU, and combined the results of all data sets using random-effects meta-analysis with meta-analytic moderators (e.g., community vs. treatment-seeking samples). Predictors explained 45.84% of the variance in PPU scores. Out of the 700+ potential predictors, 17 variables emerged as significant predictors across data sets, with the top five being (a) pornography use frequency, (b) emotional avoidance pornography use motivation, (c) stress reduction pornography use motivation, (d) moral incongruence toward pornography use, and (e) sexual shame. This study is the largest and most integrative data analytic effort in the field to date. Findings contribute to a better understanding of PPU's etiology and may provide deeper insights for developing more efficient, cost-effective, empirically based directions for future research as well as prevention and intervention programs targeting PPU. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it