MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758945193 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.09.002

A Comparison of Approach and Avoidance Sexual Goals in Couples with Vulvodynia and Community Controls

2017· article· en· W2758945193 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

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityToronto Public HealthUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVulvodyniaPsychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePelvic painSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) is a prevalent form of vulvodynia that interferes with the sexual and relational functioning of affected couples. Approach and avoidance sexual goals are associated with the sexual and relationship well-being of women with PVD and their partners. However, whether sexual goals differ in couples coping with PVD compared with community couples is unknown. AIMS: To compare the approach and avoidance sexual goals of women with PVD and their partners with a control sample of community women and their partners to build on an established motivational model and to compare the sexual goals of women with PVD with those of their partners. METHODS: Women diagnosed with PVD and their partners (n = 161) and control couples (n = 172) completed measures of approach and avoidance sexual goals. OUTCOME: Approach and Avoidance Sexual Goals Questionnaire. RESULTS: Women with PVD reported lower approach and higher avoidance sexual goals than control women, whereas partners of women with PVD did not differ from control partners in their sexual goals. Women with PVD also reported lower approach and higher avoidance sexual goals compared with their partners, whereas there were no differences between partners in the control sample. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Given that avoidance sexual goals have been linked to negative sexual and relational outcomes, clinicians could strive to help couples with PVD become aware of their sexual motives, with the aim of weakening avoidance sexual goals and bolstering approach sexual goals. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This is the first study to empirically document differences in sexual goals between couples affected by PVD and community couples. Limitations include the study's correlational design, differences in demographic characteristics between samples, and the homogeneity of participants' sexual orientation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the sexual goals of women affected by PVD differ from those of community women and from their partners and support sexual goals as targets for psychological interventions to help couples coping with PVD. Dubé JP, Bergeron S, Muise A, et al. A Comparison of Approach and Avoidance Sexual Goals in Couples With Vulvodynia and Community Controls. J Sex Med 2017;14:1412-1420.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.270 · 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