MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144562834 · doi:10.1016/j.sexol.2006.04.008

L'effet de l'âge sur le répertoire et le plaisir sexuel

2006· article· fr· W2144562834 on OpenAlexaff
Gilles Trudel, M.R. Goldfarb

Bibliographic record

VenueSexologies · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepertoirePsychologyHumanitiesSexual behaviorArtDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le comportement sexuel et le niveau de plaisir associé aux activités sexuelles furent évalués en utilisant l'inventaire des comportements sexuels chez 119 hommes et femmes âgés de 19 à 48 ans et chez 172 femmes et hommes âgés de 52 à 75 ans. Une première analyse du répertoire sexuel montre que les activités sexuelles les plus fréquemment pratiquées chez les deux groupes sont très différentes. De plus, l'étendue du répertoire du groupe plus jeune fut significativement supérieure lorsqu'on le compare à celui des sujets plus âgés. Concernant le niveau de plaisir associé avec les activités sexuelles, les femmes plus jeunes rapportent un niveau significativement plus élevé de plaisir que les plus âgées. Cependant, le niveau de plaisir n'est pas significativement différent chez les hommes jeunes et plus âgés. The sexual behavior repertoire and the level of pleasure associated with sexual activities were evaluated using the Sexual Behavior Inventory in 119 men and women aged 19 to 48 and in 172 men and women aged 52 to 75. A first analysis of the sexual behavior repertoire showed that the most frequently practiced sexual activities by both groups were quite different in nature. Moreover, the extent of the sexual behavior repertoire of the younger group was significantly superior to the one declared by the older group. Regarding the level of pleasure associated with sexual activities, younger women reported a significantly higher level of pleasure than their older counterparts. However, the level of pleasure was not significantly different between the younger and older men.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexologiesSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207