MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982532378 · doi:10.1080/713846827

Using a Different Model for Female Sexual Response to Address Women's Problematic Low Sexual Desire

2001· article· en· W1982532378 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

VenueJournal of Sex & Marital Therapy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual arousalPsychologyArousalContext (archaeology)Sexual desireDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyDepression (economics)Sexual behaviorHuman sexualitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An intimacy-based sex response cycle was used in the assessment of 47 women referred with low sexual desire. All could relate to the model and multiple breaks in the cycles were identified. Emotional intimacy to motivate the women to find sexual stimuli to elicit arousal was insufficient in 50%. Sexual stimuli and context were minimal in 53%. Psychological factors diminishing arousability were identified in 85%, depression contributing in 43%. Androgen deficiency (the cause suggested by referring doctors) contributed in 25%. Identifying missing components of their "normal" but currently problematic sex response cycles was itself therapeutic.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.219 · 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