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
Most older adults experience sexual desire and engage in sexual activity, however, our knowledge about the sexual well-being (SWB) of older adults is still scarce. The present study aimed to examine the SWB of older adults as well as differences in their SWB based on gender and relationship status. The final sample consisted of 297 adults (149 men and 148 women) who ranged in age from 65 to 75 years; 63% (n=188) were currently in a romantic relationship. Participants were recruited using the crowdsourcing platform Amazon's M-Turk. Participants completed a background questionnaire, as well as measures of sexual behaviours (frequency of genital and non-genital activity and masturbation alone), sexual affect and cognitions (sexual esteem, attitudes, and satisfaction), sexual motivation (sexual interest), and sexual functioning. Our participants reported overall positive SWB; specifically, positive sexual self-esteem and attitudes toward sex as well as high sexual satisfaction and interest. Furthermore, participants who were in a relationship engaged in frequent genital and non-genital sexual activity. About two-thirds of the participants in a current relationship had experienced at least one sexual difficulty in the last three months, but only one-quarter were distressed about it. Although some gender and relationship status differences emerged, in general both the men and women and participants who were and were not in a relationship reported positive SWB. These results are discussed in terms of the ways in which they extend our knowledge on the SWB of older adults and challenge popular myths about sexuality in later life.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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