Motivations and Sexual Attitudes, Experiences, and Behavior of Sexuality Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the motivations for entering the field and sexual attitudes, experiences, and behavior of an international group of sexuality professionals. Participants were 252 individuals attending the XVII World Congress of Sexology who completed a questionnaire in English, Spanish or French. Most participants' reported professional rather than personal motivations for entering the field in addition to interest. On average, participants reported little sexual communication with their parents as children. About one-third had experienced unwanted sexual activity as a child. Participants were mostly accepting of a range of sexual activities, although they were less accepting of some behaviors than of others. Twelve of the participants who had engaged in sexual activity with a casual or anonymous partner in the previous 2 years had not used a condom consistently. Participants reported high sexual satisfaction and good sexual communication with their partner. Nevertheless, 45% of the women and 35% of the men reported regularly experiencing one or more sexual problems. Few participants reported that their profession affected their sexual functioning negatively; in contrast most reported that it had positive effects on their sexual functioning. These results suggest that there are few differences between sexuality professionals and the general public.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".