MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981654896 · doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.690112

Why Medicalization? Introduction to the Special Issue on the Medicalization of Sex

2012· article· en· W1981654896 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

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicalizationSexologyContextualizationHuman sexualityScholarshipSociologyGender studiesPoliticsPsychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This special issue grows out of the need to bring into focus the historical and sociocultural contextualization of sex to the sexological community. The specific focus is on analyzing how medicalization is affecting many areas of sexual life and discourse, but the larger goal is to help situate sexuality studies in its broadest perspective. Articles will be of general interest to those interested in interdisciplinary scholarship; the specific articles address HIV politics, sex therapy, women's sexual health, sex and aging, the popularization of weak science, and the media's view that sexual exuberance is a central marker of recovery from cancer. Medicalization is a current trend that illuminates the importance of a broader view of sexology.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.342 · 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