Relationship of sexual quality of life and mental well-being in\nundergraduate women in a Canadian university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As young women transition from adolescence to adulthood, they begin to explore their sexual identities and sexual relationships. The current literature supports the relationship between sexual quality of life (QOL) and mental well-being. However, this relationship has not yet been replicated in undergraduate women. In order to address this gap, the authors assessed the correlation between sexual QOL and mental well-being among a sample of women undergraduate students in Canada. The study design was cross-sectional in nature, and demographic information was collected, along with the completion of validated measures of sexual QOL and mental well-being. A total of 157 individuals participated. After removing those who did not meet inclusion criteria and those with 90% incomplete responses, 124 valid survey responses remained for analysis. A hierarchical multivariable linear regression was conducted while controlling for age, sexual orientation, exercise, history of nonconsensual sexual contact, household income, and self-perceived health status. Every one-unit increase in sexual QOL was associated with a 0.35 increase in mental well-being (95% CI 0.105–0.428, p = .002). A history of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual activity had a significant negative correlation with mental well-being (p = .027). The authors’ findings suggest a significant relationship between sexual QOL and mental well-being. There is a strong opportunity for universities to bolster the support services available to students, with a required focus on women with a history of nonconsensual sexual contact.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".