MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922887845 · doi:10.1080/0092623x.2018.1518881

The Relationship Between Sexual Functioning and Sexual Concordance in Women

2019· article· en· W2922887845 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sex & Marital Therapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual arousalConcordanceArousalSex organPsychologySexual desireClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySexual dysfunctionHuman sexualityMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research using clinical samples has shown a positive relationship between women’s sexual functioning and sexual concordance (i.e., agreement between genital and subjective sexual arousal). We further examined this relationship using concurrent measures of vaginal, clitoral, and subjective sexual responses in a community sample of women (N = 64, with 59.4% and 34.1% reporting sexual desire and/or arousal difficulties, respectively). Contrary to studies using clinical samples, sexual desire and arousal difficulties were associated with stronger sexual concordance, specifically when changes in subjective arousal predicted changes in genital responses. The subjective experience of arousal may be particularly important in influencing genital responses in women with sexual desire and arousal difficulties compared to unaffected women.

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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.259 · 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