MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2487685365 · doi:10.1177/1363460716649338

Faking to finish: Women’s accounts of feigning sexual pleasure to end unwanted sex

2016· article· en· W2487685365 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexualities · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSt. Thomas University
KeywordsOrgasmPleasureSexual coercionPsychologySexual desireNegationCoercion (linguistics)Social psychologySexual attractionHuman sexualitySexual dysfunctionGender studiesSexual behaviorSociologyPsychoanalysisPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we explore women’s accounts of consensual but unwanted sex, and how these accounts connect to feigning sexual pleasure. Interviews were conducted with 15 women and we employed a discursive analytic approach to examine the data. All women used discursive features (e.g. negation, hedging) to situate at least one of their past sexual experiences as problematic although all avoided the use of explicit labels such as rape or coercion. Furthermore, women commonly faked orgasm as a means to end these troubling sexual encounters. We argue the importance of considering women’s accounts of ‘problem’ sex so these experiences are not dismissed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.330
Teacher spread0.275 · 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