Narratives of Desire in Mid-Age Women With and Without Arousal Difficulties
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is controversy about the nature of women's sexual desire. The aim was to explore narrative descriptions of sexual desire among mid-aged women in hopes of clarifying how women define and experience sexual desire, and how these might differ among women with and without female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD). Mid-aged women without (age: M = 45, n = 12) and with (age: M = 55, n = 10) FSAD took part in in-depth interviews that invited them to share personal stories of sexual desire. Women also completed the Brief Index of Sexual Functioning and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Women in both groups described sexual desire in genital, non-genital physical, and in cognitive-emotional terms. Although women with FSAD had low ratings of sexual desire on the FSFI, they could recall recent experiences of desire that did not differ from the control group. Women identified a number of triggers of desire including touch, memories, and partner's responses--the latter of which acted as both a trigger and an inhibitor. Women in the control group were more likely to express conflation about the distinction between desire and arousal. Among the different "objects" of women's desire, most women acknowledged emotional connection as most important.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it