Glad You Came: The History of the Science Concerning the Study of the Female Orgasm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The science surrounding the female orgasm, female sexual behaviour, and female ejaculation has been incredibly controversial throughout its history. Social stigma and morality has shaped and influenced scientific discovery throughout time but has had particular impacts when studying female sexuality. Until very recently there was controversy over the existence of phenomena such as female ejaculation, despite it being documented for over 2000 years and several accounts from women to the contrary. Examining the history behind recent discoveries such as the complexity of the clitoris and the biochemical composition of female ejaculation improves our collective understanding, of how we as a scientific community have come to where we are today. Examining the controversy and multiple perspectives throughout history also provides insight on the history of science and how it has changed through time.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".