The rise of digisexuality: therapeutic challenges and possibilities
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radical new sexual technologies, which we term “digisexualities,” are here. As these technologies advance, their adoption will grow, and many people may come to identify themselves as “digisexuals” – people whose primary sexual identity comes through the use of technology. Researchers have found that both lay people and clinicians have mixed feelings about digisexualities. Clinicians must be prepared for the challenges and benefits associated with the adoption of such sexual technologies. In order to remain ethical and viable, clinicians need to be prepared to work with clients participating in digisexualities. However, many practitioners are unfamiliar with such technologies, as well as the social, legal, and ethical implications. Guidelines for helping individuals and relational systems make informed choices regarding participation in technology-based activities of any kind, let alone ones of a sexual nature, are few and far between. Thus, a framework for understanding the nature of digisexuality and how to approach it is imperative.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it