MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403970544 · doi:10.1093/socrel/srae031

Sanctified Sexism: Effects of Purity Culture Tropes on White Christian Women’s Marital and Sexual Satisfaction and Experience of Sexual Pain

2024· article· en· W4403970544 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Sawatsky, Rebecca Lindenbach, Sheila Wray Gregoire, Keith Gregoire

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Religion · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMarriage and Sexual Relationships
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite (mutation)PsychologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since the 1970s, research consistently links conservative religiosity with higher rates of primary sexual pain disorders in women. The effects on women’s marital and sexual satisfaction and experience of severe primary sexual pain due to belief in sexually restrictive and sexually coercive gender ideological tropes common in evangelical resources are described in a large snowball sample of white American Christian women (Sexual Satisfaction and Function Survey, N=5489). We found that belief in purity culture tropes was associated with higher rates of sexual pain disorders. Current belief in sexually restrictive tropes was associated with lower marital and sexual satisfaction as was past belief in sexually coercive tropes. Current internalization of two tropes was associated with higher marital satisfaction, likely explained by decreased marital satisfaction among those who deconstructed compared with those who still believe. Never believing tropes were protective for women’s marital and sexual satisfaction while belief deconstruction showed mixed effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociology of ReligionSame topicMarriage and Sexual RelationshipsFrench-language works237,207