MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170607493 · doi:10.1155/2015/914134

Differences according to Sex in Sociosexuality and Infidelity after Traumatic Brain Injury

2015· article· en· W2170607493 on OpenAlexafffund
Jhon Alexander Moreno, Michelle McKerral

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioural Neurology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
KeywordsPsychologyNeuropsychologyTraumatic brain injuryClinical psychologyHuman sexualityDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore differences according to sex in sociosexuality and infidelity in individuals with TBI and in healthy controls. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two individuals with mild, moderate, and severe TBI having completed a postacute TBI rehabilitation program, at least six months after injury, and 47 healthy controls. MAIN MEASURES: Sociosexual Orientation Inventory-Revised (SOI-R) and Attitudes toward Infidelity Scale. RESULTS: Overall, men score significantly higher than women in sociosexuality. However, there was a nonsignificant trend towards a reduction of sociosexuality levels in men with TBI. Infidelity levels were comparable in healthy controls and individuals with TBI. In individuals with TBI, less acceptance of infidelity was significantly associated with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation, but not in healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: As documented in previous cross-cultural studies, men have higher levels of sociosexuality than women. However, men with TBI showed a tendency towards the reduction of sociosexuality. The possibility of a latent explanatory variable is suggested (e.g., post-TBI neuroendocrinological changes). TBI does not seem to have an impact on infidelity, but individuals with TBI who express less acceptance of infidelity also report a more promiscuous mating strategy regarding their behavior, attitudes, and desire. Theoretical implications are discussed in terms of evolutionary theories of human sexuality and neuropsychology.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioural NeurologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207