Where do young people learn about sexual pleasure and does the source make a difference?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pleasure is integral to our sexual lives, and young people report wanting to learn more about giving and receiving sexual pleasure. There has been little comparative research examining young people’s perceptions of the sources and quality of information about sexual pleasure they receive from formal and informal sources. The current study assessed reports of a sample of 345 young adults (18–25 years) about the quality and quantity of information learned about sexual pleasure from four formal (school-based sexual health education, parent[s]/guardian[s], healthcare professionals, religious institutions) and four informal (peers/friends, partner[s], media/internet, pornography) sources. The results suggest that young people are getting most of their information about sexual pleasure from informal sources. However, they did not perceive any sources, formal or informal, as providing high-quality information. Canonical correlation analysis indicated that the quantity and quality of sexual pleasure information from informal, but not from formal, sources, was associated with a range of positive outcomes related to sexual pleasure, including a broader conceptualization of sexual pleasure, more frequent dyadic sexual activity, and more pleasurable first and current sexual experiences. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for ensuring that young people’s sexual rights to information about sexual pleasure are met.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".