MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768837379 · doi:10.1177/1359105317742920

A narrow view: The conceptualization of sexual problems in human sexuality textbooks

2017· article· en· W2768837379 on OpenAlexaff
Monika Stelzl, Brittany Stairs, Hannah Anstey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Thomas University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationHuman sexualityPsychologySexual behaviorDevelopmental psychologySociologyGender studiesComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the ways in which the meaning of 'sexual problems' is constructed and defined in undergraduate human sexuality textbooks. Drawing on feminist and critical discourse frameworks, the dominant as well as the absent/marginalized discourses were identified using critical discourse analysis. Sexual difficulties were largely framed by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Thus, medical discourse was privileged. Alternative conceptualizations and frameworks, such as the New View of Women's Sexual Problems, were included marginally and peripherally. We argue that current constructions of sexuality knowledge reinforce, rather than challenge, existing hegemonic discourses of sexuality.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207