Are Older Adults Well Sexually? Sexual Well-Being among a Cross-National Sample of Older Adults
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
<p>Objectives: To analyze sexual well-being (SWB) in older adults’ perspective, to investigate the latent constructs that can work as major determinants in SWB and to examine the potential explanatory mechanisms of a SWB overall model, in an older cross-national sample. Method: Measures were completed, using a variety of appropriate methods, including demographics and interviews. Complete data were available for 163 older adults aged between 65-97 years (<em>M</em>=74.2; <em>SD</em> = 4.743). Data were subjected to content analysis. Representation of the associations and latent constructs were analyzed by a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA). Results: The most prevalent response of the interviewed participants for SWB was “affection and care” (11.0%). A three-dimension model formed by “intimacy and well-being”, “care, eroticism and desire”, and “sexual activity and health” was presented as a best-fit solution for German older adults. SWB for Portuguese older adults were explained by a three-factor model: “intimacy, health and desire”, “affection and well-being” and “sexual activity”. Conclusions: The outcomes presented in this paper emphasized the need to explore the indicators of SWB among older adults and the under-developed potential of a SWB overall model for the older population.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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