MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treating women’s sexual difficulties: the body work of sexual therapy

2011· article· en· W1879736439 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Health & Illness · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthIntervention (counseling)Sex organPsychologySexual dysfunctionFace (sociological concept)MedicineClinical psychologyGender studiesPsychiatrySociologyPopulationSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper seeks to illuminate the interactions of medics and other healthcare practitioners with women's bodies by looking at intervention in the area of women's sexual problems or 'Female Sexual Dysfunction' (FSD). Drawing on data produced in the first empirical study to date of women's accounts of their experiences of seeking and receiving treatment for perceived sexual difficulties, we analyse two treatments for women's sexual difficulties involving direct touch of the body: sexual medicine and pelvic physiotherapy. We adopt the concept of 'body work' as a way of illuminating practitioners' focus on the bodies of patients and the complex, contradictory meanings of genital touch brought by these interactions. We conclude by considering the goals and methods of these sexual therapies, the challenges that practitioners face, and the implications of all the above for women, their bodies, and their capacity for sexual enjoyment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it