MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530783219

Perinatal sexuality: An overview of women’s intimacy and sexuality during and after pregnancy

2015· article· en· W2530783219 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine de Pierrepont

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care Current Reviews · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityReproductive healthPsychological interventionPopulationBreastfeedingPsychologyHealth careMedicineDevelopmental psychologyNursingGender studiesSociologyPolitical sciencePediatrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I the transition to parenthood (from the decision to have a child or conception until the baby is 2 years old), future and new parenting couples are faced with numerous intimate and sexual changes and have to adapt as best as they can. Women’s sexuality change at different levels (biological, psychological, sociological, emotional) during the 5 phases of the perinatal period: Preconception, pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum and breastfeeding. However, very little attention has been given to women’s intimacy and sexuality during the transition to parenthood both in research and practice. Moreover, there is a clear dearth of research and interventions in this domain, despite women’s obvious and particular needs. This presentation has three objectives: Provide a critical review of the research studies conducted on this subject (what do we know on perinatal sexuality concerning women?); provide an overview of the interventions developed to support women (what are we doing to help those women?) and make recommendations for different levels of healthcare (what can we do as health professionals for those women?). This presentation will provide a better understanding of a sexual fundamental issue for women: Perinatal sexuality. It is part of an equity approach in population health to promote the individual, the couple, the family and the society and to promote equitable access to appropriate services and collaborative, continuous and durable care regarding sexual and reproductive health.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designOther design · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care Current ReviewsSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207