Pilot Intervention to Enhance Sexual Rehabilitation for Couples After Treatment for Localized Prostate Carcinoma
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
No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult urology1 May 2006Pilot Intervention to Enhance Sexual Rehabilitation for Couples After Treatment for Localized Prostate Carcinoma A.L. Canada, L.E. Neese, D. Sui, and L.R. Schover A.L. CanadaA.L. Canada More articles by this author , L.E. NeeseL.E. Neese More articles by this author , D. SuiD. Sui More articles by this author , and L.R. SchoverL.R. Schover More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00169-8AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Pilot Intervention to Enhance Sexual Rehabilitation for Couples After Treatment for Localized Prostate Carcinoma." The Journal of Urology, 175(5), p. 1825 Department of Behavioral Science, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas© 2006 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 175Issue 5May 2006Page: 1825 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2006 by American Urological AssociationMetricsAuthor Information A.L. Canada More articles by this author L.E. Neese More articles by this author D. Sui More articles by this author L.R. Schover More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...
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 | 0.000 | 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