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 OpenAlexaff
Kelly D. Suschinsky, Jackie S. Huberman, Larah Maunder, Lori A. Brotto, Tom Hollenstein, Meredith L. Chivers

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sex & Marital TherapySame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207