A Psychometric report on Yost's Attitudes toward Sadomasochism Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Date Received: 11th November 2019 Date Accepted: 29th December 2019 Correspondence should be directed to: BJ Rye, PhD St. Jerome's University at the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G3 Email- bjrye@uwaterloo.ca We collected data from three samples of participants who completed Yost's (2010) Attitudes about Sadomasochism Scale (ASMS) along with a number of other related measures with the goal of providing independent validation of the ASMS. Using a small, university sample and two larger internet samples, we provided concurrent validity by presenting moderate-to-strong correlations of the ASMS with a BDSM semantic differential attitude scale, interest in sadomasochism items, and selfassessed sadomasochism knowledge. Further, the ASMS correlated well with measures of erotophobia--erotophilia (i.e., personal comfort with sexuality). There were differences on the ASMS and its subscales based on participant sexual orientation, with sexual minorities demonstrating more favorable scores on the ASMS compared to heterosexuals. Also, those who self-reported that they were more religious were less favorable on the ASMS. There were no differences on the ASMS as a function of gender (men versus women), age cohort, regional location in the US, or environmental residence (rural, suburban, or urban). A confirmatory factor analysis supported Yost's original factor structure although deletion of a two-item subscale was recommended. In general, attitudes toward sadomaschism were slightly favorable for the entire sample. We concluded that the ASMS is a valid and reliable measure for the assessment of attitudes toward sadomasochism and recommend its use in future investigations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".