MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060495865 · doi:10.1016/j.sexol.2014.05.008

Physiological assessment of male sexual function

2014· article· en· W2060495865 on OpenAlex
Mayte Parada, K. Germé

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

VenueSexologies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual arousalArousalPsychologySex organSexual functionPenisClinical psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceBiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a long-standing interest in the assessment of male sexual function. Naturally, this interest has typically focused on the evaluation of the erectile response itself. As our understanding of the male arousal response has expanded, the techniques to assess physiological sexual arousal have also grown in number, beginning with the measurement of external, visible changes in the penis such as measurement of penile circumference or rigidity to direct internal processes like penile hemodynamics, and neurophysiology. The current article is not meant to be an exhaustive one, rather it focuses on the tools that have traditionally been used, and those currently used, both in the laboratory and clinical setting to assess typical and atypical arousal responses in men. Genital thermography is also discussed as a potential tool that has re-emerged as a method of assessing physiological sexual arousal.

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)0.000
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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.276 · 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