Gods associated with male fertility and virility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human fertility has always been a topic of curiosity and devotion. Many cultures consider fertility to be a necessity for the survival and perpetuation of mankind and since early times, myths were created to explain this fabulous process. Fertility gods were ubiquitous in numerous ancient human cultures and were used both to understand fertility and to cope with infertility by means of rituals and offerings. OBJECTIVES: This manuscript aims to catalog and describe the deities associated with male fertility and virility. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search for the terms "male fertility god" and "male virility god" on the internet using web-based search engines. Based on the information retrieved, we selected those deities directed related to male fertility and/or virility and further deepened the search using Pubmed and Medline databases for peer-reviewed articles as well as books and articles about ancient mythology. RESULTS: We identified several gods linked to male fertility and virility in various cultures from Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, Southwestern United States, France, Colombia and Buthan.. DISCUSSION: Most of these deities were depicted with an erect phallus and with other fertility symbols like snakes. Some deities were also associated with plants and/or animal fertility and their festivals were often held during the harvest period. CONCLUSION: Gods of male fertility and virility played important roles in many ancient cultures. Offerings and rituals to these gods were the only available options to deal with problems of reproduction and demonstrate the lengths to which ancient people would go seeking cures for infertility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".