Young adults’ desired life tradeoffs: love first, sex last
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every human and non-human animal must make tradeoffs in investments in terms of time, energy, and resources. The aim of this study was to extrapolate from the types of investments in survival and reproduction that non-human animals make and translate these into human motivations. 16 potential goals were presented to 851 childless, 18-23-year-old adults from 11 world regions in an online study. Each young adult was asked to weight the importance of every goal to his or her ideal life. Weights had to sum to 100, requiring tradeoffs. Results revealed striking agreement across young adults with only four goals weighted above chance: Finding a beloved romantic partner, being physically and emotionally healthy, and earning money or resources. Having lots of sexual partners was the least important goal across all world regions for both sexes. Nevertheless, men more than women valued having many sexual partners, being talented outside work, being physically strong, and having a physically attractive romantic partner. Overall, there was cultural variation in some of the less important goals. Helping young adults achieve success requires understanding their own goals, rather than focusing on popularized depictions of what young adults desire.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".