Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the U.S. there are over 300,000 people who suffer from spinal cord injuries. This incident increases every year by 10,000 to 12,000 new patients (Harrop et al., 2006). In Canada, about 36,000 people live with spinal cord injuries, while 55% of them, are people in the reproductive phase of their life, aged 16-30 years, and the ratio of men to women is calculated to 4 /1(Mittmann et al., 2005). For several years there was a myth in societies that people with paraplegia or quadriplegia have no sexuality, do not have erectile function and that they are infertile. In fact, sexual expression is a component of personality and it is independent to the erectile function or fertility status. In handicaps lack of sexual interest is associated with social withdrawal and inability to recover while sexual alertness is associated with faster and better recovery. The degree of sexual rehabilitation is directly related to physical rehabilitation, social integration and quality of life (Biering-Sorensen & Sonksen, 2001; Fisher et al., 2002). Last years the medical community emphasizes on quality of life and sexuality of people with spinal cord injuries. It is shown that the 66% of patients with spinal cord injuries consider their erection sufficient for sexual activity. The incidence of injury on the person's sexual function depends on the location and the extent of the damage. After Spinal Cord Lesions (SCL), both men and women are reporting decreased desire and low frequency of sexual activity (Deforge et al., 2006).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".