MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401468174 · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2024.2385909

Minor-Attracted Men’s Lived Experiences of Romantic Attraction

2024· article· en· W4401468174 on OpenAlexafffund
Julia Levitan, Frederica M. Martijn, Maria Santaguida, Michael C. Seto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sex & Marital Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaConcordia UniversityMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAttractionRomanceMinor (academic)PsychologySocial psychologyPsychoanalysisDevelopmental psychologyArtPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of minor-attracted persons have mainly focused on their sexual attractions, and little is known about their romantic attractions. This online qualitative survey study collected 74 self-identified minor-attracted men’s anonymous accounts of romantic attraction to minors. Using reflexive thematic analysis, three themes were identified and interpreted: (1) Falling in Love; (2) Recognizing Limitations to Attraction and Relationship Development; (3) Making Sense and Meaning of Romantic Attraction to Minors. Overall, romantic attraction to minors resembles romantic attraction to adults. Findings have implications for how conceptualization, assessment, and treatment of minor attraction may each consider both sexual and romantic domains.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sex & Marital TherapySame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207