MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096213042 · doi:10.1080/00926230290001411

Are Our Definitions of Women's Desire, Arousal and Sexual Pain Disorders Too Broad and Our Definition of Orgasmic Disorder Too Narrow?

2002· article· en· W2096213042 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 · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaginismusPsychologyArousalSexual arousalSexual dysfunctionSexual desireNormativeFemale sexual dysfunctionOrgasmClinical psychologyComorbidityDevelopmental psychologyHuman sexualityPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since each individual female sexual dysfunction is complex, it is necessary to subtype them in addition to dividing them into life-long or acquired disorder. The complexity of women's sexual arousal necessitates appreciation of a number of different types of arousal disorders that vary not only in etiology but also in management. The coexistence of sexual arousal and sexual desire, which develops during a sexual experience, explains the frequent comorbidity of arousal and desire disorders. Subtyping of hypoactive sexual desire disorder allows analysis of lack of receptivity and of any marked loss of the traditional markers of sexual desire over and beyond a normative lessening with relationship duration. Dyspareunia and vaginismus require further analysis prior to any definitive therapy. The definition of orgasmic disorder needs to include loss of orgasmic intensity and the possibility of coincident arousal disorder.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.204 · 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