MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465208357 · doi:10.1080/19317611.2016.1204403

Men's Sexual and Relational Adaptations to Erectile Dysfunction After Prostate Cancer Treatment

2016· article· en· W2465208357 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sexual Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersLa Trobe UniversityProstate Cancer Foundation of AustraliaUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsErectile dysfunctionProstate cancerCognitive reframingErectile functionSexual functionSexual dysfunctionHuman sexualityPsychologyClinical psychologyGynecologyReproductive healthQualitative researchMedicinePsychotherapistCancerInternal medicineGender studiesSociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated how men adapt to erectile dysfunction and other sexual side-effects of prostate cancer treatment. The study recruited nonheterosexual and heterosexual men using an anonymous, international, online survey (N = 558). This article focuses on a qualitative analysis of answers (n = 348) to one open-ended question on sexual practices after treatment. Five themes emerged: (a) recovery of erectile function; (b) reframing sexual practices; (c) the importance of partners; (d) exploring anal sex; (e) the use of masturbation. The findings suggest that men should explore varied sexual options. Partners are also important in the overall recovery of men's 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.307 · 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