MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159330171 · doi:10.1080/01443610400023171

Psychophysiological and subjective sexual arousal to visual sexual stimuli in new women

2005· article· en· W2159330171 on OpenAlexaff
Lori A. Brotto, Darlynne Gehring, Carolin Klein, Boris B. Gorzalka, Sydney Thomson, Gail Knudson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual arousalArousalPsychologySex organAffect (linguistics)Context (archaeology)AudiologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conflicting data exist regarding the sexual arousal patterns of post-operative male-to-female (MTF) women with Gender Identity Disorder. The purpose of this study was to examine objective and subjective aspects of the sexual arousal response using a vaginal photoplethysmograph. Fifteen MTF women viewed neutral and erotic audiovisual film segments while their blood flow patterns were monitored. Subjective measures of affect and sexual arousal were taken before and immediately after the films. There was a significant increase in self-reported subjective arousal, perceived genital arousal, perceived autonomic arousal, and positive affect; however, movement artefacts interfered with our assessment of the genital arousal response. MTF women reported both low levels of pain and low levels of awareness of the vaginal probe during testing. These data are discussed in the context of differences in pelvic musculature between natal and new women and have implications for future studies that aim to measure sexual arousal objectively in MTF women.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207