Revisión teórica en torno a la discusión sobre trastornos sexuales.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El comportamiento sexual humano, comprende aspectos biologicos, psicosociales, conductuales, clinicos, morales y culturales. La literatura explica que las teorias y las practicas sexuales varian de acuerdo a la epoca y a las culturas donde se desarrollan. Siendo asi, el resultado de la imagen que las personas han construido sobre su propia sexualidad y la de los demas. Crespo, Labrador, & De La Puente (1995) senalan la complejidad de establecer limites entre lo normal, anormal o patologico de las conductas sexuales. De acuerdo a las clasificaciones diagnosticas, los trastornos sexuales, se basan en la experiencia subjetiva de malestar e insatisfaccion de la actividad sexual propia, en el que se incluyen cambios a nivel fisiologico, anatomico, motor y emocional (Labrador & Crespo, 2001). Masters & Johnson (1996) estudiaron el comportamiento de la respuesta sexual humana, desde la perspectiva psicologica y fisiologica; dividiendolas en 5 fases representadas en deseo, excitacion, meseta, orgasmo y resolucion, lo que les permitio describir las disfunciones sexuales inherentes, lo cual contribuyo a sus clasificaciones (Labrador & Crespo, 2001). Dada la necesidad de conocer el comportamiento de los problemas sexuales, es relevante hacer mencion de ellos, y asi establecer un panorama completo que permita describirlas para facilitar a los profesionales de la salud identificarlas, evaluarlas y tratarlas pertinentemente.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".