MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989325266 · doi:10.1080/00918369.2014.870452

A Systematic Review of Sexual Dysfunction Measures for Gay Men: How Do Current Measures Measure Up?

2014· review· en· W1989325266 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 Homosexuality · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyClinical psychologyHomosexualityPsychometricsHeterosexismHuman sexualitySexual functionReliability (semiconductor)Measure (data warehouse)Sexual dysfunctionDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The measurement of subjective components of sexual functioning is of increasing importance in clinical research and practice. Differences have been reported in prevalence rates and experiences of sexual difficulties between heterosexual and gay men. The aim of this article is to identify reliable and valid measures of sexual dysfunction suitable for use with gay men. Seven measures were reviewed; details about item development, dimensionality, reliability, and validity are provided. Heteronormative and heterosexist wording were evident throughout. Several areas of concern emerged in relation to psychometric properties (e.g., questionable validity). No psychometrically robust sexual function measure was identified for use with gay populations.

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)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.253 · 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