MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011760823 · doi:10.1080/00224490903244567

Development and Validation of the Pregnancy and Infant Orientation Questionnaire

2009· article· en· W2011760823 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heino F. L. Meyer‐Bahlburg, Curtis Dolezal, Laurel L. Johnson, Suzanne J. Kessler, Justine Schober, Kenneth J. Zucker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sex Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyScale (ratio)Sample (material)Developmental psychologyData collectionClinical psychologyRelevance (law)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was the construction, scaling, and scale validation of a self-report questionnaire assessing biographical information and motivation for pregnancy and infant care in men and women with disorders of sex development or other gender variations of potential clinical relevance. The overall design of the questionnaire and the initial item pool were derived from related clinical and research experience. Collection of pilot data and, where appropriate, scale construction (via principal components analyses) were based on Canadian convenience samples of heterosexual (HET) and non-HET men and women (N = 414). A sample of gender-dysphoric (GDYS) men and women (n = 45) was added for validity analysis. Validation of the resulting scales was based on the demonstration of expected scale differences between HET men and women, as well as between HET, non-HET, and GDYS men and between HET, non-HET, and GDYS women, and was successful with one exception. This study concludes that this new questionnaire, in addition to its descriptive sections, provides several distinct scales related to desires for child bearing and child rearing and has good psychometric properties.

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 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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sex ResearchSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207