MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007155379 · doi:10.1080/14681994.2011.649251

Young women's descriptions of sexual desire in long-term relationships

2012· article· en· W2007155379 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

VenueSexual & Relationship Therapy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)PsychologySexual desireDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesHuman sexualitySociologyPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to gain a greater understanding of how women in emerging adulthood describe and make sense of their experience of sexual desire in long-term relationships. Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with women in long-term relationships (2.5 years or longer) in emerging adulthood (ages 18–29) regarding their experiences of sexual desire. In order to ensure a range of experiences, we recruited two groups of women: those who were “wondering where the passion has gone” and those who felt “the passion was stillalive”. Data were analyzed using grounded theory methodology. Women provided various explanations for why they continued to experience high desire orexperience a decrease in desire. Similarities and differences between the two groups of women are explored and implications of this study's results are discussed.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.166 · 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