Identifying a sound environment for secondary schools (ISESS) - instruction and tutorial documents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A controversial proposal to collapse sexual disorders of desire and arousal is forthcoming in the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) (DSM-5). Yet, no study has attempted to empirically distinguish these disorders by using explicit criteria to recruit and compare distinct groups of low desire and arousal sufferers. The goal of the current study was to test the feasibility of finding medically healthy men and women meeting clearly operationalized DSM-IV-TR criteria for disorders of desire and/or arousal and compare them to matched controls. To assess operational criteria, participants completed a comprehensive telephone screening interview assessing DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 criteria, as well as standardized self-report measures of sexual functioning. The use of operationalized DSM-IV-TR criteria to recruit participants led to the exclusion of over 75% of those reporting sexual difficulties, with the primary reason for exclusion being failure to meet at least one central diagnostic criterion. The application of the DSM-5 criteria was even more restrictive and led to the exclusion of all but four men and one woman using the original four-symptom criteria, and four men and five women using the revised three-symptom criteria. Cluster analyses supported the distinction between desire and genital arousal difficulties, and suggest that different groups with distinct clusters of symptoms may exist, two of which are consistent with the DSM-5 criteria. Overall, results highlight the need for revisions to the diagnostic criteria, which, as they stand, do not capture the full range of many people's sexual difficulties.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".