MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343389026 · doi:10.1177/0898264316645541

Obesity and Sexuality Among Older Couples: Evidence From the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project

2016· article· en· W2343389026 on OpenAlexaff
Soyoung Kwon, Markus H. Schafer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityOverweightObesityReproductive healthBody mass indexGerontologyPsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Association (psychology)MedicineDemographyDevelopmental psychologyPopulationEnvironmental healthGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We investigate whether obesity is associated with sexual activity, sexual frequency, and the range of sexual behaviors in heterosexual older couples. We assess to what extent associations between obesity and sexuality are explained by physical, psychological, and sexual health, and by relationship quality. METHOD: We use data from 1,698 older adults in 849 partnered dyads in the 2010-2011 wave of the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project and conduct couple-level analysis featuring women's and men's characteristics. RESULTS: Women's obesity-particularly at severe levels-is negatively associated with coupled sexual activity, but the association is not mediated by hypothesized mediators. Men's obesity did not have any association with sexual activity. There was no significant difference between overweight and normal weight adults across all three sexuality measures. DISCUSSION: The growing number of older adults with high levels of body mass index, particularly women, may face certain difficulties in maintaining active sexual lives.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and HealthSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207