MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904191689 · doi:10.1080/19419899.2018.1555185

A thematic analysis of a sample of partnered lesbian, gay, and bisexual people’s concepts of sexual satisfaction

2018· article· en· W2904191689 on OpenAlex
Patrícia M. Pascoal, Krystelle Shaughnessy, Maria Joana Almeida

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Sexuality · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianPsychologySexual orientationHuman sexualityThematic analysisSexual identitySocial psychologyPortugueseHomosexualitySexual minorityDevelopmental psychologyGender studiesQualitative researchSociologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexual satisfaction is an important component of sexual health. There are few proposed conceptual definitions of sexual satisfaction and operational definitions are significantly limited. Those that exist were developed with heterosexual people. In this study, we performed thematic analysis on 60 Portuguese, partnered, sexual-minority people’s written answers to the question: “How would you define sexual satisfaction?” The results revealed a sex positive definition that includes intersecting individual and dyadic dimensions with social discourses relating to sexual minority identity and dominant patterns of relationships and sexuality. Findings highlight the need to consider LGB specific experiences in both research and clinical work.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.363 · 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