“When we graduate, this is over”: Young Women’s Experiences with Hooking Up and Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
metropolitan Kansas City, finds its 30,000 students engaged in a diversity of activities on any given Saturday night. Lawrence, Kansas provides worthy grounds on which to study social life and its constantly changing organization; this college town’s Midwestern values coexist with no shortage of places to look for a good time. Greek life, a thriving panorama of downtown bars, the social hubbub surrounding Division One sports, house parties up and down every block of the “student ghetto, ” and a bevy of options for more sober leisure comprise the social scene for Lawrence’s young people. Though the outward appearance of social life has remained much the same, one facet has undergone tremendous evolution throughout the last 50 years – the way students interact sexually. The Genealogy of Hookup Culture In the 1960s, the advent of the birth control pill changed the social landscape far more than anyone could have imagined. Access to the pill radically reduced concerns about unwanted pregnancy and allowed women freedom from planning sexual encounters far in advance. The new reproductive autonomy it afforded paved the way
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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".