MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974208149 · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2014.935539

Patient Characteristics by Type of Hypersexuality Referral: A Quantitative Chart Review of 115 Consecutive Male Cases

2014· article· en· W1974208149 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine S. Sutton, Natalie Stratton, Jennifer Pytyck, Nathan J. Kolla, James M. Cantor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sex & Marital Therapy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHypersexualityTypologyPsychologyClinical psychologyAnxietyPsychosexual developmentPsychiatrySexual addictionComplaintMedicineDevelopmental psychologySexual behavior

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypersexuality remains an increasingly common but poorly understood patient complaint. Despite diversity in clinical presentations of patients referred for hypersexuality, the literature has maintained treatment approaches that are assumed to apply to the entire phenomenon. This approach has proven ineffective, despite its application over several decades. The present study used quantitative methods to examine demographic, mental health, and sexological correlates of common clinical subtypes of hypersexuality referrals. Findings support the existence of subtypes, each with distinct clusters of features. Paraphilic hypersexuals reported greater numbers of sexual partners, more substance abuse, initiation to sexual activity at an earlier age, and novelty as a driving force behind their sexual behavior. Avoidant masturbators reported greater levels of anxiety, delayed ejaculation, and use of sex as an avoidance strategy. Chronic adulterers reported premature ejaculation and later onset of puberty. Designated patients were less likely to report substance abuse, employment, or finance problems. Although quantitative, this article nonetheless presents a descriptive study in which the underlying typology emerged from features most salient in routine sexological assessment. Future studies might apply purely empirical statistical techniques, such as cluster analyses, to ascertain to what extent similar typologies emerge when examined prospectively.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sex & Marital TherapySame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207