MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Women's Endorsement of Models of Female Sexual Response: The Nurses' Sexuality Study

2007· article· en· W2005158796 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 Sexual Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityPsychologyClinical psychologySexual behaviorDevelopmental psychologyMedicineGynecologyGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The current Summary of Recommendations on Sexual Dysfunction in Women is conceptually grounded on a model of women's sexual function that has not been empirically tested in samples of women with and without sexual dysfunction. AIM: The current research represents an initial effort to assess the extent to which women in a community sample endorse current theoretical models of female sexual function based upon work by Masters and Johnson, Kaplan, and Basson as accurately reflecting their own sexual experience. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's endorsement of brief descriptions of current models of female sexual function (Masters and Johnson, Kaplan, and Basson) as accurately reflecting their own sexual experience and their own levels of sexual function or dysfunction as assessed by the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). METHODS: A random sample of 580 Registered Nurses was mailed a 58-item questionnaire which assessed women's perception of the fit of their sexual experience with current models of female sexual response and included the FSFI. RESULTS: In total, 133 women, of whom 111 had a current man partner, returned responses. Approximately equal proportions of women endorsed the Masters and Johnson, Kaplan, and Basson models of female sexual response as representing their own sexual experience. Women endorsing the Basson model had significantly lower FSFI domain scores than women who endorsed either the Masters and Johnson or Kaplan models. CONCLUSION: These are the first data to assess the proportion of a community sample of women who endorse widely accepted models of female sexual response as representing their own sexual experience. Women in this sample were equally likely to endorse each of these different models, emphasizing the heterogeneity of women's sexual response, and highlighting the need for additional research to guide the field's acceptance and application of particular models of female sexuality in particular situations. Women's endorsement of models of female sexual response was correlated with their FSFI scores, and findings suggest that the Basson model, currently advanced by the Second International Consultation on Sexual Medicine, may best reflect women with sexual concerns (e.g., FSFI < 26.55), rather than a single normative sexual response pattern.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.279 · 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