MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130806170 · doi:10.1080/14681990410001691370

A survey of Relate psychosexual therapy clients, January to March 2002

2004· article· en· W2130806170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jane Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual & Relationship Therapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosexual developmentVaginismusSex therapyQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologySexual dysfunctionErectile dysfunctionSexual intercourseSexual desireSexual relationshipMedicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyHuman sexualityDevelopmental psychologyPopulationGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey of Relate psychosexual therapy clients was conducted between January and March 2002. Relates sex therapists filled in a questionnaire about their current clients. The response rate was 66% and covered 592 client hours. Analysis of the clients presenting problems showed that the sexual problem was considered to be the womans in half the cases, the mans in just over a quarter and joint in just under a quarter of cases. The most common female sexual problem was lack of desire followed by vaginismus. For men the most common problem was erectile dysfunction, present in nearly a third of cases. For men almost half of the remaining cases were split evenly between loss of desire for sex and the presence of more than one sexual problem. When both partners were admitting they had a sexual problem the most common combination was a shared loss of sexual desire. Overall a third of cases involved more than one sexual dysfunction. In nearly 50% of cases there were medical problems present which were contributing to the sexual problem. Since the last published survey of Relate psychosexual therapy clients the age profile of male clients (but not female clients) has changed significantly.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual & Relationship TherapySame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207