Definitions of Having Sex in Older Men and Women and Their Relationship with Sexual Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to explore the sexual activities that older adults consider as having had sex and to examine correlates of the ways that older men and women define sex. A sample of 286 men and women aged 60 years and older who were involved in a romantic relationship were recruited online from Prolific and Facebook advertisements. Participants were presented a list of 19 different sexual activities and asked whether they would think they had sex if they engaged in each one of those activities. Results showed that penetrative sexual activities were found to be the most likely endorsed as having had sex, followed by genital non-penetrative activities, masturbation activities, and non-genital contact. Greater sexual frequency for a sexual activity was associated with endorsing that same activity as having had sex. A cluster analysis revealed five different groups of individuals based on the activities that they considered as having had sex. Only small differences in sexual wellbeing were found among these groups of individuals. The way older men and women define sex is complex and shows great variability. Our results have important implications for the operationalization and assessment of sexual activity. Other implications for healthcare and future research 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".