MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067206207 · doi:10.1080/009262300278641

The Female Sexual Response: A Different Model

2000· review· en· W2067206207 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 Sex & Marital Therapy · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgasmSexual arousalPsychologyArousalModalitiesVariety (cybernetics)Sexual behaviorDevelopmental psychologyComponent (thermodynamics)Treatment modalityCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistSexual dysfunctionNeuroscienceMedicineInternal medicineComputer sciencePsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clarification of women's sexual response during long-term relationships is needed. I have presented a model that more accurately depicts the responsive component of women's desire and the underlying motivational forces that trigger it. The variety of arousal/orgasm responses is also acknowledged. The purpose is both to prevent diagnosing dysfunction when the response is simply different from the traditional human sex-response cycle and to more clearly define subgroups of dysfunction. The latter would appear to be necessary before progress in newer treatment modalities, including pharmacological, can be made.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.260 · 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